-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Don't do this either. The suspension settles while parked. Just don't park over the concrete barriers.
Alysashley79
Active Member
@bressr you're basing your KwH ratio based on an S85 correct? I have the P85 and I'd say his #'s are quite comparable to what I get this time of year going over the mountains. I actually climb daily from sea level to my home at 2200' elevation and my lifetime KWH is at 302. I average around 350 going over the mountains.
Inwill say say this for us P people because of the added torque from the takeoff and spurts (we all know we still do it) it's always going to be higher than an S85.
@marc thanks for all the info! While the dual motor to me would be great when we get snow and I'll be interested to hear from those that have had a MS RWD in snow vs the duals it seems like the P85d does about the same mileage wise as the P85. Sort of disappointing to me.
Not at all. We left the ski resort with 68 miles of EPA range left and the trip back to the supercharger was 73 miles, but I knew we'd be going downhill for a long time and recover many rated miles - which we did. I've also owned other EVs before so I'm used to this!
Marc, For those of us who don't know the 110 mile trip, where you went through 144 rated miles of range. Were they a steady 75mph, plus the one acceleration? You later mention "twisties", were they in the 110? Elevation change? We'll know soon enough, but your's are perhaps the first numbers. So, thanks for indulging us.
"275 at 65" (P85D) won't surprise me, but it is false to judge this against "265 miles EPA" (S85).
I think there are two verifications we're all waiting on.
1. Is P85D less efficient on the EPA cycle, or not?
2. Is the AWD configuration going to deliver more range, at fixed highway speed?
I bet both are true. Going 75mph is a pretty dramatic increase in wind resistance, vs. 65. Your 1.3 miles of rated range consumption, for each mile traveled shows it (144/110).
242/1.3 = 186 miles (@75mph)
"275 at 65" (P85D) won't surprise me, but it is false to judge this against "265 miles EPA" (S85).
I think there are two verifications we're all waiting on.
1. Is P85D less efficient on the EPA cycle, or not?
2. Is the AWD configuration going to deliver more range, at fixed highway speed?
I bet both are true. Going 75mph is a pretty dramatic increase in wind resistance, vs. 65. Your 1.3 miles of rated range consumption, for each mile traveled shows it (144/110).
242/1.3 = 186 miles (@75mph)
The 110 miles first leg is just a straight freeway (I-80) with very little turns and just some elevation gain/loss (net is very small). The twisty hills come later, in the 73-mile section of I-80 between Roseville and Tahoe.
I-80 is mostly limited to 65 mph, and since there was no traffic at all I drove a steady 10 mph over during that first stint.
This is interesting. From what I can see, the rated mile calculation is 350Wh/mile (85,000Wh/242miles = 350Wh/m). If I use this as a baseline, and then do the calculations off of your table, I get the following Wh calculations:
- SF to Roseville: 458Wh/m
- Roseville to SugarBowl: 719Wh/m
- SugarBowl to Roseville: 201Wh/m
- Roseville to SF: 439Wh/m
- Total: 453Wh/m
(To follow my math, take the ratio of rated miles to effective miles, and multiply that to the baseline of 350 Wh/m and you get the effective Wh/m)
Having never driven my old Tesla to Tahoe, I don't know what a non-D Model-S would be so I don't have a great baseline to compare the power efficiency to. What I do find interesting is the SF to Roseville and back again calculations. Both are pretty high power consumption, and just taking those numbers, the effective range of an 85kwh battery would be 186-194 miles.
Since there is no 85 to compare it to, you can't draw conclusions about the D's relative range, but these are disappointing range calcs.
But another thing that is quite interesting - look at just the Roseville to SugarBowl part of the trip. The combined power efficiency is 460Wh/m. Almost exactly what you got from SF to Roseville and only 5% worse than Roseville to SF. This basically means you paid a minimal tax for driving up/down the mountain. Almost every bit of power you put in, you got back on the way down. I'm a bit surprised by this. Makes me wonder if the dual motor configuration is significantly more efficient going downhill.
Anyway thanks for the detail
- SF to Roseville: 458Wh/m
- Roseville to SugarBowl: 719Wh/m
- SugarBowl to Roseville: 201Wh/m
- Roseville to SF: 439Wh/m
- Total: 453Wh/m
(To follow my math, take the ratio of rated miles to effective miles, and multiply that to the baseline of 350 Wh/m and you get the effective Wh/m)
Having never driven my old Tesla to Tahoe, I don't know what a non-D Model-S would be so I don't have a great baseline to compare the power efficiency to. What I do find interesting is the SF to Roseville and back again calculations. Both are pretty high power consumption, and just taking those numbers, the effective range of an 85kwh battery would be 186-194 miles.
Since there is no 85 to compare it to, you can't draw conclusions about the D's relative range, but these are disappointing range calcs.
But another thing that is quite interesting - look at just the Roseville to SugarBowl part of the trip. The combined power efficiency is 460Wh/m. Almost exactly what you got from SF to Roseville and only 5% worse than Roseville to SF. This basically means you paid a minimal tax for driving up/down the mountain. Almost every bit of power you put in, you got back on the way down. I'm a bit surprised by this. Makes me wonder if the dual motor configuration is significantly more efficient going downhill.
Anyway thanks for the detail
Bighorn
Top Supercharger
If you're going to do predictive math about the rated range rate constant, you need to use the energy available for the rated range which is not 85kWh. On my P85+ it's 74--this improves your number to 306Wh/RM.
In all the cars, a good majority of the penalty of mountain climbing is returned on the descent. Very unlikely to be affected by the dual motor configuration.
Both cars have 85kWh batteries. Rated range is just the Wh/m calculation to translate energy (kwh) into predicted miles.
Mark's experience doesn't mirror my own on hills. If I go from the south bay to SF via 101, my efficiency (Wh/m) is much better than if I travel via 280. The only difference is the hills. That's why I was surprised he didn't see a penalty there.
Bighorn
Top Supercharger
Correct, but approximately 11kWh of the P85's energy is sequestered for protection and not included in the car's calculation of rated range. I've not heard any good data from P85D owners about the number of kWhs available from a range charge, but I imagine it is close to the P85+.
Really? I didn't know that. What is it protecting? Is it simply for power reserve for hard acceleration?
Do you have a link or a suggestion to get more information on this?
@tcampos, I believe it has been firmly established that all EVs "reserve" or protect a significant fraction of the total battery power to prevent the driver from running the battery down to zero and thereby "bricking" it (rendering it unusable and ruining it beyond repair). The "hidden" part of the battery is also used by the Tesla BMS in various ways.
I would be surprised if your average speed was the same between 101 and 280. In my 15 years experience commuting in the Bay Area, through good times (tech bubbles) and bad times (dot-com crash, financial crisis, etc) I've found that the average traffic speed is always higher on 280. So unless you're very diligent at setting cruise control to the same speed on both highways and never hit traffic (unlikely these days), part of your higher consumption on 280 is likely due to the higher average speed.
and more / tighter traffic + the sound walls on 101 for wind resistance/ drag improvements
Yeah, I'm referring to an apples to apples comparison. No or minimal traffic. At night or on weekends, you generally won't get significant traffic on 101. On 280, it's easy to speed, but I have done runs where I just put the car on CC @ 70mph and the range is definitely affected by the hills when compared to 101 which is flat.
I've owned my (other) Model-S for nearly 2 years, so quite familiar with it's range behavior relative to driving patterns.
- - - Updated - - -
I would have expect this to show up in the EPA calculations as it is effectively unusable. Sort of like saying that your car doesn't really have a 20 gallon tank, because the car needs 2gallons for some other purpose, so talking about range based on a 20 gallon tank is misleading.
Anyway, I'm glad to have been informed here as like I said, I hadn't ever heard of this - 11kWh is quite a bit of energy to reserve. I asked Tesla to provide more detail on this.
Bighorn
Top Supercharger
There's a nice graphic that breaks down the several "compartments" energy is devoted to--can't put my hands on it presently. There's anti-bricking. There's some range beyond zero, though that has been variable and debated--some people have driven almost 20 miles beyond zero while others have come to a stop very near zero. Hard acceleration is limited when the battery is at a lower state of charge--separate issue. 74kWh is what my car shows when I drive from a full range charge down to zero, or near there and extrapolate. For a P85+, it works out to 275Wh/rated mile, so the new P85D is 30Wh more per rated mile. Whether this is empiric or based on the EPA data has yet to be determined.
I think this is the chart you're referring to:
I'm not sure what "zero-mile" protection means but it looks like at least 75.9 of the 85 kWh are available if charged to 100%.
If the "zero-mile" portion is also made available for emergencies, that's a full 81.1 kWh. Not bad.
I actually found it somewhere on here, not sure what the exact source is though:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=44514&d=1393958731
