P85D vs. P85 Efficiency Testing, Take 2

[lolachampcar]

Art,
I'm even simpler than that. My P+ was +18K miles with a lifetime under 290 WHr/mile so I have a well established history/driving style. Same style, location, conditions and my posts are not intended as guidance for others to achieve my results but a back to back comparison of different configurations.

That said, all of your points are valid.

 

[Andyw2100]

I am one of the people with .139 who doesn't seem to be seeing significant improvement. I have posted some of my data as it compares to EV Trip Planner Data. I can't compare it to similar data before .139, because I was not recording it as accurately.

But what would be really helpful to me, and I'm sure to others who have .139 and are not experiencing the improved efficiency would be if a few of you who are would plug some data from a trip or two into EV Trip Planner and post the comparisons. My point is that right now, the only benchmark I have for comparison is where I stand relative to EV Trip Planner, as opposed to where you guys stand as compared to EV Trip Planner. We can't just compare other metrics, because of all the other variables. Right now, I seem to be doing somewhat worse than EV Trip Planner would predict, but not a heck of a lot worse. For all I know, before .139 I might have been doing much, much worse in comparison to EV Trip Planner. If you guys who have seen massive improvements plug some numbers into EV Trip Planner, and are also seeing EV Trip Planner predicting that you should be doing even better, (unlikely, I know) then my numbers may be fine, and perhaps I have seen an increase in efficiency. On the other, much more likely hand, if you guys are now beating EV Trip Planner expectations by a significant margin, those of us on .139 not doing so may have something to worry about. And if we get .140 and still aren't, we will definitely have something to worry about.

So again, if some of you who have experienced the improvement could plug a trip or two into EV Trip Planner, and then post the trip details, and what EV Trip Planner predicted, that would be very helpful. Similarly, if some of us thinking we're not getting the improvement could do the same. (I did that in this thread yesterday, and can continue to if people agree it will be helpful.)

Thanks!

Edit: I'm going to start a new thread for this, so as not to clutter up this one. I'll come back and post the link to it here.

New thread here: Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner

Please post your results and comparisons to EV Trip Planner if you are or are not seeing better efficiency. Thanks!

 

[RobinF]

Has anyone tested for the small boost in the 0-60 time promised by the Twitter in Chief Elon?

 

[joer00]

Art,
I'm even simpler than that. My P+ was +18K miles with a lifetime under 290 WHr/mile so I have a well established history/driving style. Same style, location, conditions and my posts are not intended as guidance for others to achieve my results but a back to back comparison of different configurations.

That said, all of your points are valid.

I am wondering what your driving pattern is. As you have a McLaren and a D I assume you are not a "grandfather" driver, so how do you get to such low usage ? My old P average was 351 and I do not drive thaaaaat crazy.

The occasionally 3 second 0-60 runs do not have a real strong impact as I can see. 3 seconds has no meaning for the consumption for a 3 hour drive.

 

[ArtInCT]

I am wondering what your driving pattern is. As you have a McLaren and a D I assume you are not a "grandfather" driver, so how do you get to such low usage ? My old P average was 351 and I do not drive thaaaaat crazy.

The occasionally 3 second 0-60 runs do not have a real strong impact as I can see. 3 seconds has no meaning for the consumption for a 3 hour drive.

I am sitting here laughing, at myself, actually.... The P85D is such a beast that in some ways trying to drive it with a bias towards WH/M efficiency is almost a blasphemy.
However that is not to say that the P85D cannot service multiple styles of driving and do so with excellence.
Not owning a P85D but having test driven one twice... there is a meter that in real time shows you ReGen and Power Draw, right?
I think if you try to keep that meter in the neutral position, given a correct speed, TS will take over.
Wonder how TS and mild ReGEN work in that regard... will the S coast more easily with TS and ReGEN set to minimum?
Said another way... Are TS and Normal (heavy) ReGEN at odds and provide the hunting that LOLA mentions??

 

[lolachampcar]

joer,
I noticed early on with my first P85 that it did not really seem to matter how hard you accelerated (within reason of course) to get up to speed. I still seemed to use about the same amount of energy to get the car up to speed. What really makes all the difference in the world is NEVER using the brakes to scrub off speed. Anticipating traffic to keep from stopping at stop lights is magical. Coasting followed by regen to stop when you must helps a lot. I've always had an interest in the efficient use of energy which applies to just about any type of driving so it was natural to drive MS efficiently.

Of course it helps that I live in flat South Florida, do not have to drive in rush hour traffic and have year round reasonably moderate temperatures. This is why I try to keep my comments limited to my back to back results as opposed to outright efficiency numbers. We will all have different average WHr/mile results but what matters is if we have the equipment to achieve those averages or not.

 

[RobinF]

Wonder how TS and mild ReGEN work in that regard... will the S coast more easily with TS and ReGEN set to minimum?
Said another way... Are TS and Normal (heavy) ReGEN at odds and provide the hunting that LOLA mentions??

This is an interesting question actually. I'm sure there's an engineering analysis somewhere which balances out the effect of reengaging the sleeping motor for regen purposes vs. just using the running motor in regen. I don't know if there's a cost in activating the sleeping motor frequently (every time you let off the accelerator); if there is then there has to be a point where the two efficiency lines cross. This would result in an algorithm which calculates at what exact point of pedal position to wake the sleeping beast to pull juice out of the kinetic energy resulting in a two-stage regen effect.

 

[daviddavidw]

Just a thought, but thinking down the path that Torque Sleep might turn off or be ultra sensitive to throttle changes, for those that are seeing great improvements versus those that still are not with .139 and .140, maybe it has to do with using TACC and/or throttle driving technique? For those not seeing improvements, were you use TACC?

 

[RichardL]

Just a thought, but thinking down the path that Torque Sleep might turn off or be ultra sensitive to throttle changes, for those that are seeing great improvements versus those that still are not with .139 and .140, maybe it has to do with using TACC and/or throttle driving technique? For those not seeing improvements, were you use TACC?

This makes sense to me - the way I understand things is that the bigger rear motor is being put to sleep - this means there is limited power, and limited regen available while TS is occurring - I expect that the throttle position and the rate of change of throttle position is used to determine when to come out of TS - so if you are driving at a steady 75 and slightly raise your right foot the car can assume you don't need huge amounts of regen and hence it can keep in TS, using the front motor. If you completely lift off the throttle, it has to assume you want full regen and hence it will use both motors. Similarly for increasing speed.

Accordingly those that have mentioned being very steady and deliberate on the throttle, or using TACC in light traffic will likely see much bigger improvements than someone who tends to use the throttle like an on/off switch

 

[lolachampcar]

I should probably break down and get the CAN logging equipment out to sniff the OBDii port. ICE vehicles typically broadcast status messages. If Tesla is doing the same, it would be a simple matter to plot TPS (throttle position sensor) torque demand and torque sleep status to see exactly when torque sleep is initiated and just what it takes to disturb it.

 

[Andyw2100]

Just a thought, but thinking down the path that Torque Sleep might turn off or be ultra sensitive to throttle changes, for those that are seeing great improvements versus those that still are not with .139 and .140, maybe it has to do with using TACC and/or throttle driving technique? For those not seeing improvements, were you use TACC?

I can't speak for the others, but yes, I and my wife have been using TACC on the highway and have not seen improvement, or at least not significant improvement. I am guessing most if not all of the other people not seeing improvement have also been using TACC when on the highway.

 

[trils0n]

I should probably break down and get the CAN logging equipment out to sniff the OBDii port. ICE vehicles typically broadcast status messages. If Tesla is doing the same, it would be a simple matter to plot TPS (throttle position sensor) torque demand and torque sleep status to see exactly when torque sleep is initiated and just what it takes to disturb it.

As far as I know, there is only 12v power on the OBD2.

 

[wk057]

As far as I know, there is only 12v power on the OBD2.

Yeah, pretty sure there is no data there. You need to tap the CAN buses from the connector above the center cubby.

 

[lolachampcar]

If there is only 12V and ground on the OBDii plug then it begs the question of why it is there at all. Some cars use a gateway to isolate the OBDii port from the chassis and engine CAN busses. They are quiet until queried.

 

[benjiejr]

I'm finally seeing efficiency improvement! The screenshot below shows my avg of 306 Wh/mi over 32.3 miles, much of it on highways and constant speeds using TACC, compared to my lifetime avg of 406 Wh/mi. (P85D with fw .139, insane, no range mode)

On an slightly unrelated note, I'm hearing a "click" noise from the front of the car (maybe the front motor?) when I come to a complete stop and when I take off again. It's not real loud but it's definitely obvious. Anyone else hearing this? I didn't notice it until this afternoon and I've been on fw .139 for quite a while. I had the radio off and the window open a bit so I could listen for torque sleep so maybe it's been happening but not loud enough over the music and closed windows. I'll try to get a video later.

 

[wk057]

Hmm.... no click noise here. Just the jitter that happens around a load shift (regen<->power) at low speeds sometimes...

I did some more driving with the car back in Insane/No Range mode. I'm not convinced that torque sleep works as well, if at all, in this setting. I switched back to sport/range mode and immediately noticed a huge drop in energy usage.

 

[benjiejr]

Hmm.... no click noise here. Just the jitter that happens around a load shift (regen<->power) at low speeds sometimes...

I did some more driving with the car back in Insane/No Range mode. I'm not convinced that torque sleep works as well, if at all, in this setting. I switched back to sport/range mode and immediately noticed a huge drop in energy usage.

Maybe that's what I'm hearing/feeling. I updated my post to say this was with insane mode and no range mode.

 

[rays427]

I have not seen any real improvement since getting the 139 update. I have not used sport mode and thought that might be the reason until I saw benjiejr's reply which said he saw improvement using insane mode and no range mode. I did try with and without range mode with little if any improvement.

 

[wk057]

Posted this in another thread, but it is relevant here:

Regenerative braking seems to be more effective/efficient since the torque sleep update.

Something I think is happening with the new torque sleep setup is that more regen is happening at the front motor vs the rear. Elon and others have pointed out that the front motor is more efficient, so it would stand to reason they would map the regen efficiency curve of both motors as well as the power curves to work at their optimal points.

This would explain why trips with significant "down feet" elevation changes, even if the net elevation change is positive, are seeing significant improvements vs EV Trip Planner (and previous trips on the same route).

 

[benjiejr]

I have not seen any real improvement since getting the 139 update. I have not used sport mode and thought that might be the reason until I saw benjiejr's reply which said he saw improvement using insane mode and no range mode. I did try with and without range mode with little if any improvement.

Hmm. I have only recently seen it since driving more on highway at constant speeds. In the city I saw no improvement although others are also seeing it in the city.