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

First SF-Tahoe trip in P85D

Discussion in 'Model S' started by MarcG, Dec 15, 2014.

  1. MarcG

    MarcG Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,663
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #1 MarcG, Dec 15, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2014
    Hi guys,

    I got delivery of my P85D last Friday, 12/12/14, and since we've been getting snow in the mountains I decided to go on a day-trip to Tahoe yesterday (12/14/14).
    The roads were mostly dry so I didn't get a chance to test out the AWD in the snow, but here are some stats on the charging & driving consumption:

    1. Left SF with 90% charge, indicating 219 miles of EPA-rated range. Ambient temp: 10ºC, or 50ºF
    2. Drove to the Roseville SC which is 110 miles away, averaging 75 mph, and arrived with 31% / 75 miles remaining
    3. Super charged to 90% / 220 miles in about 45 minutes (I was the only Model S there)
    4. Drove to Sugar Bowl ski resort which is 73 miles away and 6790 feet higher, averaging 70 mph, and arrived with 28% / 70 miles remaining
    5. Even after putting the car to sleep, with ambient temps around 0ºC / 32ºF, I lost 2 miles of range while skiing for 6 hours
    6. Drove back to Roseville SC, 73 miles away and 6790 feet lower, averaging 60 mph (traffic...) and arrived with 11% / 26 miles remaining
    7. Super charged to 69% / 170 miles in about 30 minutes (there were 3 others charging but on different number stalls)
    8. Drove back to SF, 110 miles away, averaging 65 mph (more traffic on 80), and arrived with 13% / 32 miles remaining

    Here's a summary table of each driving event:

    FromToActual DistanceRated Miles UsedAvg SpeedNet Altitude Change
    San FranciscoRoseville SC110 miles144 miles75 mph-92 feet
    Roseville SCSugar Bowl73 miles150 miles70 mph6790 feet
    Sugar BowlRoseville SC73 miles42 miles60 mph-6790 feet
    Roseville SCSan Francisco110 miles138 miles65 mph92 feet
    And here's a summary table of each charging event:

    LocationStart StatusEnd StatusEnergy AddedAvg PowerTimeAmbient Temp
    San Francisco50% / 120 miles90% / 219 miles34.0 kWh4.8 kW7 hours10ºC / 50ºF
    Roseville SC31% / 75 miles90% / 220 miles50.15 kWh69 kW45 min7ºC / 45ºF
    Roseville SC13% / 32 miles69% / 170 miles47.6 kWh95 kW30 min11ºC / 52ºF
    That's it for now! I'm looking forward to the long trip up to Oregon at the end of December so I can collect more geeky data.

    In the meantime, I leave you with a couple of photos:

    IMG_5157.jpg

    IMG_5161.jpg
     
  2. stevezzzz

    stevezzzz R;SigS;P85D;SigX

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Colorado
    Thanks for the report, Marc; she's a beauty.

    The big question on my mind right now is this: what's your average kWh/mi so far? Did you keep any leg-by-leg stats for that value?
     
  3. DavidM

    DavidM P2624, Delivered

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Location:
    Florida
    Thanks for the chronology. Word to the wise - watch that front bumper on the concrete curb (1st photo). A near miss.
     
  4. Kipernicus

    Kipernicus Model S Res#P1440

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,171
    Location:
    Belmont, CA
    Awesome! Nice pics.

    Doesn't 220 at 90% strike anyone else as low for a brand new 85?

    The first SF-Roseville leg averaged 309 Wh/mile (34kWh / 110 miles). That's good for an 85 at 75mph right? So the P85D is seeing some efficiency gains over standard 85?
     
  5. MarcG

    MarcG Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,663
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Oh good question, no sorry I didn't... will try to do that on the long trip up North!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Thanks for the heads-up! I noticed it after parking. Next time I'll raise the air suspension to High.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The P95D is rated at 242 miles of range, even though I have the 19" wheels which is rated at 250 miles.
    If you do the math on all the rated miles / percent capacity numbers I wrote, you'll see the theoretical range at 100% is right around 240-250.

    As for highway range, I agree it seems to be pretty good! That front motor is definitely helping out with its different gearing than the rear motor.
    I'll keep an eye on city vs. highway efficiency in the future.
     
  6. Victory

    Victory Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Messages:
    46
    Location:
    United States
    I suspect that's very efficient considering how much of that mileage is uphill. Perhaps the range is so low due to temperature. Or is that not included in the EPA rated range?
     
  7. SFOTurtle

    SFOTurtle Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,039
    Location:
    Los Altos, CA
    Yes
     
  8. Eclectic

    Eclectic Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    293
    Location:
    San Francisco area
    Thank you for taking the time to provide these details, they're very helpful and interesting.

    I assume that you did not have the car in insane mode. Is this correct?

    I'm a bit concerned about the energy usage and range...a few weeks ago I did a round trip from SF to Sac in my P85, using the Roseville SC, and ended up using only 120 miles of rated range for the 110 miles, with an average MPH of maybe a bit higher than yours. This could be an issue, as I'd hate to give up that much range with the P85D I have on order.
     
  9. Lump

    Lump Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,102
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    I hope you plan on getting paint protection, Xpel the front & Opti coat the rest ASAP.
     
  10. Saghost

    Saghost Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,968
    Location:
    Delaware
    I thought that was a lot of the point of this post - the 242 mile EPA rating and the debate about whether it means the car is less efficient or just a change in methodology.

    Clearly Tesla changed the rated miles curve to reach the new lower EPA number at 100% charge, which seems odd to me since I'm in the "new methodology" camp on the EPA argument (the MPGe numbers should have changed downward otherwise...)

    One data point is a little thin to do much with given all of the variables. Still, it is encouraging, and in line with Tesla's original announcement.
    Walter
     
  11. MarcG

    MarcG Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,663
    Location:
    San Francisco
    No insane mode except once in the very beginning of the SF-Roseville leg to enter 101 and show off the acceleration to my friends.

    Couple of points that may differ with your trip: it was probably warmer when you took it, and I'm not sure what the payload you had but we were 3 adults with all our ski gear (3 pairs of skis, boots, etc.)
     
  12. ArtInCT

    ArtInCT Always Learning

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,602
    Location:
    Southern Connecticut
    #12 ArtInCT, Dec 15, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2014
    Very Nice Data MarcG.
    Hey, you gotta be careful of those curbs.... did the parking assist start to warn you that you were too close?

    The rated mileage used is always over the actuals from what I can see (if you combine the uphill and downhill legs of
    Roseville to Sugarbowl to Roseville)...

    It appears that you are getting 77% of the rated to actual miles.... 366 actual consumed 474 rated in your case.
    But you had a lot of payload on board.

    It could be your driving style and other aspects like winds, etc. Not to worry.

    How was the driving experience itself?
    I take it that this is your first Tesla...?
     
  13. stevezzzz

    stevezzzz R;SigS;P85D;SigX

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Colorado
    Marc, you can pull up the average Wh/mi on the Trips display, available as a selection on the instrument cluster behind the steering wheel. Did your DS show you how to configure that display?

    Many S owners never touch the Trip A meter, using it as a lifetime record of kWh consumed and Wh/mi achieved. I normally reset the Trip B meter twice a year, once when I swap from winter to summer tires, and then when I switch back again.
     
  14. Kipernicus

    Kipernicus Model S Res#P1440

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,171
    Location:
    Belmont, CA
    Wait a minute - I thought the D was supposed to have more efficiency and higher rated range? Isn't that what Elon said at the announcement? When did all this new methodology come up?
     
  15. Saghost

    Saghost Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,968
    Location:
    Delaware
    Yup. That's what Elon said, and some of the information in the order page matches it. Then came this:

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=65167

    and all of this discussion related to it:

    Range Reduced on Dual Motor Configs? - Page 2

    The placard shown in the attachment shows slightly lower city MPGe (86 vs 88) and somewhat higher highway MPGe (94 vs 90) while showing an overall range of 242 miles - which you can't get to from 265 by any combination of the relative MPGe numbers.

    There was a lot of discussion last year on Leaf forums about new methodology involving averaging the normal and range mode charge levels for the EPA rating - which may or may not be what happened on the new Tesla Placard.

    Read this article for discussion about the Leaf change. AFAIK, Tesla hasn't retested/certified since the rule change until now:

    2013 Nissan Leaf gets 75-mile range (actually 84) in new EPA test

    Walter
     
  16. p1sl

    p1sl Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5
    Location:
    Milwaukee, wi
    I don't think this calculation is correct. He charged 50.1kWh at Roseville to get the car back to 220 (started at 219). So that is 455 Wh/mi...?
    A PD rated mile does not equal the same energy unit as a non-D rated mile either, so using 144 PD RM for 110 actual mi is not as good as it seems. Hard to believe this car will go 275 miles at 65mph.
     
  17. randompersonx

    randompersonx Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    493
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #17 randompersonx, Dec 15, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2014
    @MarcG I'd be careful about pulling all the way into spots like you did in that picture ... With a car so low to the ground, it's only a matter of time before you find a curb just slightly too high and scrape the bumper.

    Even if you raise the air suspension the car may gradually lower over time to drop the car onto it.

    Stop behind the curb, not over it.

    Thanks for posting your experience for all of us living vicariously through you until we get our own deliveries :)
     
  18. JRod0802

    JRod0802 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Messages:
    661
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Hi Marc. First of all, thank you for posting all of your experiences with us (in both this thread and others). So I know that in "Insane" mode, MotorTrend measured the 0-60 time as being 3.1 seconds. How is the 0-60 time when in "Sport" mode? Have you taken any objective measurements? Can you subjectively tell the difference? I'm guessing that most people will have the car in Sport mode most of the time, so knowing the acceleration rate in that mode seems like a good data point.

    Also, and this is a question to anyone, I believe that Performance mode in the Roadster actually allowed the battery to get warmer to increase performance (is that true?). Is that how Insane mode works in the Model S? Or is the switch between Sport and Insane an instantaneous kind of thing?
     
  19. Firewired

    Firewired Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Messages:
    367
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    walter,

    what are you thinking? I am soon to be new owner with my P85D just competing production. I am little bit worried about the range meaning I can't have my cake and eat it too, and highway trips become more of a hassle. Do you think based on what he is reporting that that it is still in line of increased efficiency on a level surface with warmer temp at 65mph? As well as this poorer showing was due to the worst of all worlds: higher speeds, cooler temps and elevation changes?
     
  20. Saghost

    Saghost Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,968
    Location:
    Delaware
    Three people in the car, and a ski rack on the roof, with a single data point. I'm thinking I don't know enough to draw conclusions yet. :)

    Personally, I'm confident that the EPA data points to better highway economy and a change to the test methodology. But I don't have anything in the game - I might be buying a Model X in a year or two, if things go well, maybe - so for the moment I'm just an interested observer.

    The only thing I don't understand is why Tesla re-arranged the rated range bars to match 242 at 100%, instead of at the 90-ish percent the data suggests it comes from.
    Walter
     

Share This Page