I am starting to see some pretty promising range improvements on .139 now. I think the battery warming was skewing my results but today was in the mid 50s so I wasnt as prone to a cold battery. For the first time ever I saw 250wh after sustained 65mph driving. Thats better then my P85 did. I might even make it home under 300wh today! Before I was averaging 385-400
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I'm very curious if this holds true. I consistently get 340-380 in my P85+ with 20k miles. If I could keep it at 300 I would easily get 255 miles.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
theres no torque sleep on a single axle vehicle. If they can get the P85D to reasonable range then I'd consider it. I drive to LA and don't want to have to make multiple supercharger stops.
I think you mean "single motor" vehicle.
All Model S have two axles.
The "torque sleep" feature only applies to Dual Motor Model S vehicles.
I am still waiting as well (currently with .139). Just had a late night commute across Michigan on Friday night with .139. Way better than .115, but would love to have .140 if it's even better.
Did the bug report, turned range on (sport mode), temp at 69F, 19" Pirelli winter, >1000 miles now. I see marginal (if any) improvement. Entries in red are post .139. No .140. All on highway with CC / TACC on.
| speed | distance | kwh | kwh/mi | outside temp | wind | dry | |
| 2-Jan | 76 | 94.5 | 43.6 | 461 | 30 | minimal | yes |
| 3-Jan | 72 | 39.3 | 16.4 | 417 | 32 | minimal | yes |
| 3-Jan | 65 | 43.9 | 16.3 | 372 | 33 | minimal | yes |
| 4-Jan | 72 | 19.4 | 10.9 | 563 | 1 | some | yes |
| 4-Jan | 65 | 25 | 10.3 | 413 | 1 | some | yes |
| 10-Jan | 72 | 21.7 | 10.8 | 497 | 17 | minimal | yes |
| 10-Jan | 65 | 20.1 | 9.4 | 467 | 17 | minimal | yes |
| 11-Jan | 75 | 63.1 | 27.6 | 437 | 19 | minimal | yes |
| 11-Jan | 65 | 33.9 | 14.6 | 431 | 19 | minimal | yes |
| 8-Feb | 68 | 184 | 68.6 | 373 | 35 | minimal | yes |
| 9-Feb | 74 | 46.7 | 20 | 428 | 22 | minimal | yes |
| 9-Feb | 75 | 44.7 | 17.5 | 391 | 30 | minimal | yes |
MarcG
Active Member
I just added 6 rows of data from my trip to Tahoe this past weekend.
Energy consumption was higher than I expected originally but it was dumping rain almost all weekend and was very windy the first day.
Energy consumption was higher than I expected originally but it was dumping rain almost all weekend and was very windy the first day.
Rain is BAD for range. On a long road trip I had one SC->SC segment with an intense rain storm and while the whole trip averaged 280Wh/mile (this is with my S60 on 19"), that segment was 368Wh/mile. I arrived with 0 rated miles at the supercharger...
13% improvement is what I see. I don't know if that is "marginal" or not, but maybe not as much so as it first appears.
At first CHECK TIRE pressure, it has a huge impact . Then run on the highway again (using range and normal mode) using the wind speed web page (http://matesla.ca/headwind.html). Set your speed to 65 MPH + or minus what the wind app tells you (tail or headwind).
Then compare with what EVTrip planner predicted (height changes !!).
If it is flat you should get <300 wh/mile. I get this now but ONLY in range mode. Yesterday I switched back to normal/insane mode and immediately was in the 400' again. So I still think there is NO NOTICEABLE torque sleep in normal/insane mode.
For all of you who think different. Switch to insane and normal and let's compare after 1000 miles what the avg wh/mile is. I have the feeling everybody is only posting their BEST results which has statistically no meaning. I got 276 wh/mile yesterday , there was a 15 mph tailwind !
Jan 3rd 32F 65 mph 372 Wh/mi vs Feb 8 35F 68 mph 373 Wh/mi. Yes, I call this marginal, if any...
Tire pressure 45 psi - checked already.
Sport mode with range on.
Waiting for .140....
Today I made two, back to back laps of a 31-mile loop starting at my house, the first with Range mode Off and Insane acceleration selected. The second lap was with Range mode On and Sport acceleration selected. Everything else was as close to identical as I could arrange: firmware v. 6.1 (2.2.139), battery and cabin pre-conditioned, climate set to 67°, tire pressures 45-47psi; and the weather remained consistent, sunny and 61° F. with a light wind out of the WNW. Roads were dry. Of the 31 miles, in each lap, 25 were driven at 75 mph and most of the rest at 55 mph; I used TACC and was able to pretty much stay in the clear as far as traffic was concerned.
The bottom line:
Lap 1 - RangeOFF/Insane: 320 Wh/mi
Lap 2 - RangeON/Sport: 280 Wh/mi
That's a 12.5% improvement in Range mode.
I'm really pleased with the range increase I'm seeing under .139; stay tuned for further test results once Cottonwood and I (and a third driver to be named later) can get together and run some concurrent laps with both our P85Ds and his Sig P85. With any luck we'll be able to determine whether or not the P85D delivers on Tesla's claim that it's more efficient than the S/P85 at cruising speeds up to 65mph.
The bottom line:
Lap 1 - RangeOFF/Insane: 320 Wh/mi
Lap 2 - RangeON/Sport: 280 Wh/mi
That's a 12.5% improvement in Range mode.
I'm really pleased with the range increase I'm seeing under .139; stay tuned for further test results once Cottonwood and I (and a third driver to be named later) can get together and run some concurrent laps with both our P85Ds and his Sig P85. With any luck we'll be able to determine whether or not the P85D delivers on Tesla's claim that it's more efficient than the S/P85 at cruising speeds up to 65mph.
I've been testing .139 and seen around the 15% improvement over .115 similar to other posters. This in both in insane and sport (as long as range mode). Interestingly, I drove the same stretch twice today, the first pass with TACC set to 70 and no traffic at all on the freeway (312 Wh/mi) and later in the day again, this time with much more traffic, TACC set to 70, but average speed of ~62 as TACC followed the traffic speed (360 Wh/mi).
I wonder if the second pass, which averaged slower speed but much worse mileage, is a result of the fact that with TACC on but following a constant distance w/traffic:
1) TS isn't able to engage much with the constant changing speed of traffic
and / or
2). The power often kicks up inefficiently to 60-120kW to try an aggressively catch up when the car in front of me leaves the lane and it falls behind traffic.
Just a thought.
I wonder if the second pass, which averaged slower speed but much worse mileage, is a result of the fact that with TACC on but following a constant distance w/traffic:
1) TS isn't able to engage much with the constant changing speed of traffic
and / or
2). The power often kicks up inefficiently to 60-120kW to try an aggressively catch up when the car in front of me leaves the lane and it falls behind traffic.
Just a thought.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
david,
I've found it is very easy to disengage torque sleep if I am not very careful with the throttle. I've also found it near impossible to get torque sleep to stay engaged when TACC has any traffic to deal with. TACC is rude at best when dealing with the throttle and has zero ability to anticipate.
I've found it is very easy to disengage torque sleep if I am not very careful with the throttle. I've also found it near impossible to get torque sleep to stay engaged when TACC has any traffic to deal with. TACC is rude at best when dealing with the throttle and has zero ability to anticipate.
Similar threads
