-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
P85D efficiency up after 6.1
- Thread starter 403portside
- Start date
Vger
Active Member
I would just remind folks that Tesla did a lot of tweaking of driving dynamics through multiple serial f/w releases when the Signatures first came out. I would not be at all surprised if there are some "low hanging fruit" changes in 6.1, but not the full torque sleep implementation. Remember that Elon's tweet said "full idle." Perhaps they have been experimenting with various flavours of reduced power in the rear unit for weeks, and are still tweaking it.
Also, recall that JB's curves in the blog post were modelled, not measured. That may represent the idealized performance, and they are still tweaking things to get there.
Also, recall that JB's curves in the blog post were modelled, not measured. That may represent the idealized performance, and they are still tweaking things to get there.
ariporad
Member
Simple, put another car (Ideally a Model S), in front of the non-D. Then both cars get draft. They D will mirror the non-D, very accurate test.But then the D will be getting the draft effect. Still impressed by how much you are doing. It's hard to control for everything and you're in a pretty rare and lucky situation to be able to do as much as you are with the two cars.
Just drove a planned route that is 54 miles. with v 6.0 I got around 360Wh/mi, at around 40-50 degrees out. Drove the same route tonight with the temperature being 45-50 degrees. Got 331 Wh/mi. That's near a 10% decrease. Though more testing will need to be done to see if it there is a continued decrease in energy usage. Just wanted to post my data. I used TACC most of the time and never went above the speed limit.
It is colder for most folks than it was when they first got their P85D, this could easily wipe out the 10% improvement that *may* be in the new release
It's better to do two runs where the lead car is different on each run. However, each run needs to be done on different days so that the temperature during the run will be the same. (Sometimes, if the day is cloudy there is no change in temperature and both runs can be done on the same day.)
My average is 480 Wh/mi and yesterday in the same weather (-5 C / 23 F) we have been having for a week I got 515 wh/mi in 19 miles using TACC. Will try again today with a longer trip.
- - - Updated - - -
I have found that you need to increase the spacing distance on the cruise stalk to 5-6 in order for the braking to not be so abrupt.
- - - Updated - - -
I have found that you need to increase the spacing distance on the cruise stalk to 5-6 in order for the braking to not be so abrupt.
If you are doing A (P85) vs B (P85D) then it is still a valid experiment. You won't be able to compare the results to a previous run, but you will never be able to do that anyway. Too many variables.
Thanks for doing this for the community.
I thought that I would cut the chase and simply called Tesla Support (just now) to ask what was in the SW. They indicated that nothing outside of the release notes was placed into functionality for V6,1. There was no range optimization. I see a *slight* improvement as well; however, it still isnt close to what it should be. I'm gonna chalk it up to tires and driver familiarity in and allowing for that marginal improvement.
I agree that I have seen minimal, if any, improvement with 6.1. Thanks for contacting 'support' on all our behalves. I would point out though that it has been my experience in the past that not all information from 'engineering' is always shared with 'support' or local service center people.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I really don't think what Tesla Support told you means much of anything. For starters, they may not even know what the software people are really doing. Or it could be the kind of thing that they're not supposed to or allowed to talk about, for the same reason they didn't document it. If it is something they are experimenting with--putting various versions out to different cars, with some people getting some aspects of it, and some people not getting anything--do you think that is really something they would want to be acknowledging?
I can appreciate the thoughts. That said, I work in SW (as I am sure a few people on the forum do as well). By default, engineering releasing a piece of new code into the market to make unsuspecting owners Beta Testers of a feature is a terrible idea, and not typical of any publicly traded company that I have seen. Rather there would be some sort of formal request to a control group that would have specific feedback requirements in qualifying the move from BETA to GA for the release.
Notwithstanding, the nature of software is complex. Its inherently built with the intention of continuous improvement through subsequent releases. And, they will sometimes release a small change to the code that is a side effect of new capabilities and that may have a small unexpected side effect (and it may not always be observed by the masses). That said, to suggest that they are sneaking marked changes into SW releases undocumented would be a pretty big stretch. Id be more inclined to believe that they have a control group of identified BETA testers willingly experimenting with the releases before they are released GA. Anything else would be highly irresponsible.
- - - Updated - - -
I do agree with this for sure. The front line is often the least informed.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
If we were talking about anything involving the user interface, or anything that affected the way the user used the software, I'd agree 100%.
But in this case we're talking about something that is completely out of the user's control and "behind the scenes" so to speak, and something that would only improve the user experience, by increasing range sooner rather than later.
Tesla already fiddled with this component of the software, by giving all of us less than what we expected at delivery. If in this release they gave some of us what we were expecting at delivery, or something closer to it, and didn't do that for others, in an attempt to give all of us the best possible experience when they do release the official version, I'd have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever, and would not in any way consider that irresponsible.
You *think* they fiddled without disclosure. In fact, the release they provided GA was the ground zero bench mark, so actually they didn't. i don't like how they went about it but you are comparing two difference releases - a clear BETA and a generally available piece that we all received with a collective "meh" when it came to the range component.
The range is realized in the user interface - there are several apps in the car directly related to it, so I disagree that its not part of the user experience. The user controls it as best that they can through pedal efficiency. I can appreciate that you might not have a problem today with them using you (unbeknownst to you) as a BETA tester, until said BETA release leaves you stranded on the turnpike at midnight because, as BETA software goes, something unexpected happens. They dont want multiple versions of software out on the market with the same version control number. Nor do they want customers testing without their knowledge. In reality, they have many willing people that would participate in such a test (like you have mentioned) that would have to sign an NDA and be willing to perform some very specific tasks that they can measure to determine the release viability.
version is the same, nothing I can tell differently here - efficiency wise.
I think someone guessed that only some folks got the "hidden" torque idling
maybe only those folks in warm regions and so far have driven more highway miles
I think someone guessed that only some folks got the "hidden" torque idling
maybe only those folks in warm regions and so far have driven more highway miles
Was going to try a quick side by side today since it started getting up near 40F, but my wife-to-be had to head out earlier than expected.
I did do a little more driving in my P85D ~20 miles and I'm really keeping my money on no efficiency update. It's performing the same as it has been since I got the car.
I did do a little more driving in my P85D ~20 miles and I'm really keeping my money on no efficiency update. It's performing the same as it has been since I got the car.
