P85D efficiency up after 6.1

[lolachampcar]

I do not think it does any good to speculate on what Tesla did or did not add.

The simple fact is that some users are seeing dramatic reductions in W Hr/mile while others are not. I believe both sets of users which leads me to the conclusion that there is a difference. I suspect that difference is in the code running on the cars and not the drivers operating those cars.

 

[AlMc]

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.

If anyone were to get the 'unknown' beta version it should be you! Thanks for all your input about the efficiency of the 'D'. Al

 

[403portside]

I do not think it does any good to speculate on what Tesla did or did not add.

The simple fact is that some users are seeing dramatic reductions in W Hr/mile while others are not. I believe both sets of users which leads me to the conclusion that there is a difference. I suspect that difference is in the code running on the cars and not the drivers operating those cars.

Agree with this.

 

[tezzla]

I've seen huge improvements, I'm on v6.1 (2.2.92) are you guys on the same release?

I don't think I'm crazy? Here is my trip info (basically, 30 miles from home, then 30 miles back)

 

[ArtInCT]

300 Wh/mi is super, at a 90% charge over that terrain you ran, and at that speed, I guess your actual range to be 224 miles.
Do you think that estimate is valid? Your opinion?

Were you utilizing TACC? From reading the thread so far, I am sensing that TACC ON may be part of the better Wh/Mi equation.

Thanks to all making this an interesting and on topic thread... , this is my favorite thread... today ;-)

 

[AlMc]

300 Wh/mi is super, at a 90% charge over that terrain you ran, and at that speed, I guess your actual range to be 224 miles.
Do you think that estimate is valid? Your opinion?

Were you utilizing TACC? From reading the thread so far, I am sensing that TACC ON may be part of the better Wh/Mi equation.

Thanks to all making this an interesting and on topic thread... , this is my favorite thread... today ;-)

Interesting hypothesis: If there is actually a difference in what people have seen since 6.1 in efficiency could it be that vectoring right now is coupled with TACC and that if you are not using TACC that both motors run the same as before 6.1? I don't know the answer: pure speculation but it might account for the differences people are seeing. I have seen no difference but I have not been using TACC.

 

[ArtInCT]

Interesting hypothesis: If there is actually a difference in what people have seen since 6.1 in efficiency could it be that vectoring right now is coupled with TACC and that if you are not using TACC that both motors run the same as before 6.1? I don't know the answer: pure speculation but it might account for the differences people are seeing. I have seen no difference but I have not been using TACC.

Great news. So perhaps as a test, if in fact you feel safe doing so, then perhaps you could run a route with TACC off as you normally do trying to stay at posted speed limit, then recharge and do the same route this time with TACC ON.

Again, if you feel that TACC On is not for you or your normal route, then do not go outside your comfort zone.

It would be interesting to see the results...

 

[tezzla]

I used the TACC the whole way (man, I LOVE the tacc!). You are correct: I started with 223 rated miles. It was raining lightly, and the speeds weren't what I'd normally do, but, it shows that 300 wH/mile can be had.

 

[stevezzzz]

My lifetime Wh/mi has been coming down slowly from around 410 to the current 394. But it's still a really limited sample: 231 miles on 19" OEM Primacy tires. Today's out-and-return was 37 miles under gray skies at 36° F, mostly highway driving in light traffic with the tacc set at 77mph, and used 377 Wh/mi. The best leg I've seen was 360 Wh/mi at highway speeds of 60-65 mph, and that was before 6.1 was released.

So my vote is for 'no efficiency improvement with 6.1', though it's not easy to tell.

 

[lolachampcar]

Raining lightly and getting 300 W Hr/mile????????????????????????
Wow, it was hard for me to do that at 45 mph with any kind of rain in my P+.

 

[ArtInCT]

My lifetime Wh/mi has been coming down slowly from around 410 to the current 394. But it's still a really limited sample: 231 miles on 19" OEM Primacy tires. Today's out-and-return was 37 miles under gray skies at 36° F, mostly highway driving in light traffic with the tacc set at 77mph, and used 377 Wh/mi. The best leg I've seen was 360 Wh/mi at highway speeds of 60-65 mph, and that was before 6.1 was released.

So my vote is for 'no efficiency improvement with 6.1', though it's not easy to tell.

Are you utilizing the TACC most of the time with the above consumption rates?

 

[crazybrit]

Are you utilizing the TACC most of the time with the above consumption rates?

It seems to me that those seeing big improvements in efficiency are from California. The only state in the nation that has not been seeing the recent huge drop in temps.

 

[403portside]

It seems to me that those seeing big improvements in efficiency are from California. The only state in the nation that has not been seeing the recent huge drop in temps.

I don't believe that a 10 degree increase in Bay Area temperatures results in 10% more efficient driving.

 

[tezzla]

Ok, after a couple of hours testing (it's a tough job, but...), I'm guessing that there is no efficacy improvement in the v6.1 update. Here are my results:

Parameters: 30 mile drive from home, turn around and go home (mostly fwy, 65-75 mph). These are back to back drives.

30 miles from home (no tacc)

back at home (again, no tacc)

Now, this is 30 miles from home (all tacc, 74mph)

and lastly, back home (all tacc, 74mph)

It looks like the TACC did nothing for my Wh/mile (except make my drive so much better).

On the above post where I averaged 300 Wh/mile, it was the exact same route, but a lot of traffic. I guess the low rate is strictly a cause from lower average MPH.


Note: for reference, my lifetime Wh/mile was 360 Wh/mile for my P85 with 12,000 miles.

 

[stevezzzz]

Are you utilizing the TACC most of the time with the above consumption rates?

At least 90% of this trip was with TACC engaged.

 

[andrewket]

My lifetime Wh/mi has been coming down slowly from around 410 to the current 394. But it's still a really limited sample: 231 miles on 19" OEM Primacy tires. Today's out-and-return was 37 miles under gray skies at 36° F, mostly highway driving in light traffic with the tacc set at 77mph, and used 377 Wh/mi. The best leg I've seen was 360 Wh/mi at highway speeds of 60-65 mph, and that was before 6.1 was released.

So my vote is for 'no efficiency improvement with 6.1', though it's not easy to tell.

More likely is your tires are now broken in and the rolling resistance had been reduced.

For me, I'm using more energy since upgrading to 6.1. It's colder, I'm using ACC, etc. I don't think that 6.1 has torque sleep.. If it Tesla would tell us. I didn't think they would blind test the software as others have theorized.

 

[MarcG]

Well I just ran a fairly conclusive test this morning that shows no improvement with 6.1, at least for my P85D.
I took the same exact trip than the one I did a couple of weeks ago and drove at the same speed. Temperatures were luckily also the same.

Here are the details of the two trips, one on 6.0 and the other on 6.1:

SW Version	Distance	RM Used	Energy Used	Wh/mi	Avg Speed	Avg Temp	Net Elev ≠
6.0 (2.0.81)	58.1 mi	72 mi	21.5 kWh	370	68.35 mph	11ºC/52ºF	151 ft
6.1 (2.2.92)	57.9 mi	72 mi	21.4 kWh	370	68.12 mph	11ºC/52ºF	151 ft

So I guess it's fair to say that nothing in 6.1 addresses efficiency for the P85D, at least not on highway runs.

 

[GetAmped]

35 Miles, 25 F Outside, 71 Inside, TACC 90% = 432 Wh/Mi. No change for me, signing out of this thread.

 

[commasign]

Drove it more this weekend. I am still seeing a modest improvement versus when I took delivery, but I'm of the opinion it's related to the tires approaching 1000 miles and the warmer weather. Driving the car gently and using TACC set to 70 or so with heater on, I can keep things around 350Wh/mile. Once they deploy torque sleep, should be able to get down to the low 300's which would then be in line with my old P85.

 

[skilly]

This is slightly off topic, and in no way is meant to be inflammatory to those that are passionately looking for the "truth". The people here have knowledge on the cars that I would bet exceed most Tesla employees! That said, this thread has become curious to me.

First its the flavor of conspiracy around the suggestion that there are additives into the V6.1 code. And through that TM is facilitating random testers feedback unbeknownst to the owner. It seems odd that logic would lead us to that conclusion, but I'm fairly new to the brand and perhaps thats how TM cuts their teeth on new development/emerging technologies. Id be surprised, but OK...Then follows many people recording all kinds of range results, some very thorough but the general theme appears strongly grounded in driving ones P85D gingerly to get the very best mileage out of the car.

Some of the results have been quite amazing (especially the outliers)...but to achieve them, other than to say you can, my very next thought is "why are you driving such an amazing car and only taking advantage of 20% of its driving capabilities?". Ive seen a few average wh/mile in the mid 300's over the course of 700+ miles....just seems like if that is your driving style, then why the P85D? Its probably a separate topic altogether but it just had me thinking why bother buying a thoroughbred if you're going to have it confined to the kiddy rides at the county fair.