-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
benjiejr
Technogeekextraordinaire
I totally agree. I'm looking forward to my redo of the San Antonio to Dallas (Irving) trip in June. I was a rookie when I first made this trip and I learned a lot. Having this new firmware will really make the trip even more enjoyable!
I have seen little if any improvement since getting the 139 update. We live in the foothills and our travel since installing the update is driving into town which includes about 20 miles round trip of highway driving with an elevation change of about 1200 feet. Just wondering if the elevation change is preventing the torque sleep. Yesterday drove into town and back in sport and range modes and had the highest energy use since getting the car. It was raining at the time and I assume that was the cause but was surprised at the amount of range degradation.
majorlance
Member
I now have 140 and it seems to be much better at TS than 139. I'm seeing much lower energy usage in my overall driving (city, mixed and highway) than before.
Also, as rays427 pointed out, rain seems to make a difference. This was pre torque sleep but I drove about back from Delaware (130 miles) in a heavy rain storm in January and used significantly more energy than my trip on the way out. I think rain is worse than a headwind!
Also, as rays427 pointed out, rain seems to make a difference. This was pre torque sleep but I drove about back from Delaware (130 miles) in a heavy rain storm in January and used significantly more energy than my trip on the way out. I think rain is worse than a headwind!
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I now have 140 and it seems to be much better at TS than 139. I'm seeing much lower energy usage in my overall driving (city, mixed and highway) than before.
Also, as rays427 pointed out, rain seems to make a difference. This was pre torque sleep but I drove about back from Delaware (130 miles) in a heavy rain storm in January and used significantly more energy than my trip on the way out. I think rain is worse than a headwind!
As one of the people not seeing improvement with .139, I'm very happy to hear this.
When did you receive .140? If you received it recently, I think you'll be the first to have reported having received it in the past few days.
Edit: I just saw that the service center installed it for you a couple of days ago, so there's nothing those of us waiting for it via OTA update can infer from your having received it.
majorlance
Member
That's correct. I didn't have it via OTA (although I did receive all of the other updates almost immediately). Service center installed it and I did have a discussion with the senior tech there regarding the functionality.
I received .140 yesterday.
albeit my car is in the wrap shop but I went in and scheduled it, and ultimately it installed .140
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Since it has been a week now, I thought I'd bring people up to speed on this.
I followed up and had learned that the person I spoke to was waiting to hear back from an engineer with respect to whether or not they thought anything odd was going on with my car.
On Thursday evening I received an e-mail that basically just said that torque sleep was active on my car, and it included some numbers from before the .139 update and after that showed total power consumption, and also a breakout of HVAC and 12V consumption. While interesting, I didn't really find it helpful, in that it didn't demonstrate when torque sleep was active, or why it wasn't, and it showed an inconsequential reduction of 8 wh/mi after taking out the HVAC difference. I say inconsequential because I'm sure this could have been due to other factors, and even if it is due to torque sleep, it is not close to the magnitude of the increase in efficiency others have seen. I'll include below a copy of the e-mail I received.
I responded to that e-mail on Thursday evening, asking for some information, in rough terms, of the percentage of time torque sleep was active on my car. I explained that something was not making sense because when I compared the data from some of my trips that I had started tracking very carefully to what EV Trip Planner predicted, I was seeing efficiency worse than what EV trip planner predicted, but when other P85D owners did the same thing, they were seeing efficiencies significantly better than what EV Trip Planner estimated for them. I included a copy of my spreadsheet which included the data, and asked if the rep I was dealing with would please pass it along, with my questions, to the engineer. I'll include a copy of that email below as well.
I followed up just now, when I hadn't heard anything, and learned that the rep I had been dealing with had been busy, and had not actually acted on the email I had sent on Thursday evening. He said he'd be sending it along now, but thought that there was a pretty good chance no one in engineering would see it or respond until Tuesday, since tomorrow is a holiday.
So that's the update. I'll post again when I have more information.
The e-mail correspondence is below.
--
Email from Tesla rep to me:
One of our field engineers reached back out to me regarding torque sleep on your vehicle.
He said that torque sleep is active on your vehicle. When he looked at the logs for your vehicle, here is the information the car told us.
1/23 through the end of 2/1 (before torque sleep update was pushed to your vehicle)
Total Avg consumption: 417wh/mi
Avg HVAC (A/C and Heater) Consumption: 47wi/mi
Avg 12v consumption: 11wh/mi
Total avg – avg HVAC – avg 12v = 359wh/mi
2/2 through 2/12 (after torque sleep update was pushed to your vehicle)
Total Avg consumption: 434wh/mi
Avg HVAC (A/C and Heater) Consumption: 68wi/mi
Avg 12v consumption: 15wh/mi
Total avg – avg HVAC – avg 12v = 351wh/mi
So it looks like any efficiency increase you gained from torque sleep, was canceled out by the increased usage of the HVAC system and the 12v battery (increase in 12v consumption could come from the seat heaters, radio, lighting, etc). He said your car is operating normally and torque sleep is enabled and working. He said that there are a lot of variables that can affect your efficiency, like speed, temperature, tire PSI, acceleration rate, cargo in the vehicle, and terrain.
So at this point in time everything look like it is working properly on your vehicle. If you have more questions, let me know.
*****
Email from me to Tesla rep:
Thanks for the information.
What I’d like to know is in rough terms, what percentage of the time torque sleep is actually activating on my car. Because something is not right.
I have been charting some trips very precisely, and comparing them to what EV Trip Planner would predict, with respect to range miles used, total energy, and average energy. My energy usage is coming out a little bit above what EV Trip Planner would estimate it to be, Yet other P85D owners with Torque Sleep are seeing energy usage numbers that are beating EV Trip Planner estimates by significant margins. I’m using the comparison to EV Trip Planner as a benchmark, since that accounts for the differences in temperature, terrain, etc.
I’m attaching the spreadsheet I’m maintaining that shows my comparisons.
I’m really interested in what the engineer can tell me about how much of the time torque sleep is active on my car, and why I’m still seeing numbers that are worse than what EV Trip Planner predicts for me, when other P85D owners are seeing numbers that are much better than those that EV Trip Planner predicts for them.
Thanks.
...and what other data has been deemed as beyond our comprehension that isn't available!?
ArtInCT
Always Learning
Andy:
I have noticed that many of the P85D owners who see significant TS gains in Wh/m efficiency seem to be in warmer climates with FLAT terrain.
Now, I am not probably too far off in saying your environment is perhaps just the opposite of warm and flat. Probably cold, snowy and undulating at least.
I suspect if you were where they are and they were where you are.... (Gee did I actually type that?)... then they would be sending your letter to TM....
What is the typical temps up in Ithaca bout now? 15 to 20 degrees?
Did you by chance get to read the latest Tesla Living blog entry on cold weather and Wh/m? Sobering...
I have noticed that many of the P85D owners who see significant TS gains in Wh/m efficiency seem to be in warmer climates with FLAT terrain.
Now, I am not probably too far off in saying your environment is perhaps just the opposite of warm and flat. Probably cold, snowy and undulating at least.
I suspect if you were where they are and they were where you are.... (Gee did I actually type that?)... then they would be sending your letter to TM....
What is the typical temps up in Ithaca bout now? 15 to 20 degrees?
Did you by chance get to read the latest Tesla Living blog entry on cold weather and Wh/m? Sobering...
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Thanks, Art.
I have not seen the blog entry you mentioned. I'll look for it.
I had been wondering about the cold weather / warm weather relationship to torque sleep. It wouldn't surprise me if you were right, but if you are I'd like to hear that officially from Tesla. And I'd like them to tell me that in actuality my motors have not been utilizing torque sleep because it has been too cold, or whatever the case may be. I am fully cognizant of the fact that the cold affects overall efficiency negatively, but no one has said that it will also affect the ability of the motors to torque sleep, so in effect be a double-whammy. If that's the case and the explanation, that's fine. Just tell me that, and then I'll stop worrying about this until the spring.
As for the typical temperatures here, yes, you've got that about right. It's actually -1 degree Fahrenheit right now, and one of the weather warnings I saw yesterday said it could get down to -25 Fahrenheit by tomorrow morning, and -40 Fahrenheit with windchill. (I know people aren't going to believe that, so I'm going to find it and copy and paste it below. To be fair, I think that's the coldest temperature I've ever seen predicted for my area.)
--
Weather Warning - Lines with relevant info bolded:
NYZ009-016>018-025-036-037-044>046-057-160200-
/O.CON.KBGM.WC.W.0003.150215T0600Z-150216T1500Z/
/O.CON.KBGM.WW.Y.0009.000000T0000Z-150215T1200Z/
NORTHERN ONEIDA-SENECA-SOUTHERN CAYUGA-ONONDAGA-TOMPKINS-MADISON- SOUTHERN ONEIDA-CORTLAND-CHENANGO-OTSEGO-DE-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF.BOONVILLE.SENECA FALLS.AUBURN.
SYRACUSE.ITHACA.ONEIDA.UTICA.ROME.CORTLAND.NORWICH.
ONEONTA.COOPERSTOWN.WALTON.DELHI
856 PM EST SAT FEB 14 2015
.WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 7 AM EST SUNDAY.
.WIND CHILL WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 1 AM SUN TO 10 AM EST MONDAY.
* LOCATIONS.FINGER LAKES REGION TO SYRACUSE UTICA & ROME TO DE..CORTLAND.MADISON.CHENANGO & OTSEGO COUNTIES.
* HAZARDS.SNOW.BLOWING SNOW.HIGH WINDS & DANGEROUS WIND CHILL VALUES.
* ACCUMULATIONS.4 TO 8 INCHES OF SNOW.
* TEMPS.DROPPING TO NEAR ZERO BY SUN MORNING.FALLING TO 5 BELOW TO 10 BELOW BY SUN EVENING & TO 15 BELOW TO 25 BELOW BY MON MORNING.
* WIND CHILLS.25 TO 40 DEGREES BELOW ZERO FROM LATE TONIGHT THROUGH EARLY MON MORNING.
* WINDS.NORTHWEST 20 TO 30 MPH WITH GUSTS UP TO 45 MPH.
* TIMING.PERIODS OF SNOW WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE OVERNIGHT HRS. NW WINDS WILL INCREASE TO 20 TO 30 MPH WITH GUSTS TO 45 MPH OVERNIGHT LEADING TO CONSIDERABLE BLOWING & DRIFTING SNOW & LOCALIZED WHITE-OUT CONDITIONS IN OPEN AREAS.
DANGEROUSLY COLD WIND CHILLS WILL BEGIN LATE TONIGHT & LAST SUNDAY.SUNDAY NIGHT & MON MORNING.
* IMPACTS.DANGEROUS TRAVEL CONDITIONS FROM SNOW. BLOWING SNOW.& LOW VISIBILITY OVERNIGHT. FROM LATE TONIGHT THROUGH EARLY MONDAY.DANGEROUSLY COLD WIND CHILLS COULD RESULT IN FROSTBITE ON EXPOSED SKIN.OR EVEN HYPOTHERMIA. WIND GUSTS COULD CAUSE MINOR DAMAGE TO TREES & LEAD TO SPORADIC POWER OUTAGES OVERNIGHT & SUN MORNING.
PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS.
A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY MEANS THAT PERIODS OF SNOW & BLOWING SNOW WILL CAUSE TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR SLIPPERY ROADS & LIMITED VISIBILITIES.& USE CAUTION WHILE DRIVING.
A WIND CHILL WARNING IS ISSUED WHEN WINDS COMBINE WITH BITTERLY COLD TEMPS TO CREATE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CONDITIONS FOR EXPOSED SKIN. THE WIND CHILL WILL BE COLD ENOUGH TO CAUSE FROSTBITE IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES OR LESS.& COULD LEAD TO HYPOTHERMIA IF PROPER PRECAUTIONS ARE NOT TAKEN. IF YOU MUST GO OUTSIDE.REMEMBER THAT SEVERAL LAYERS OF CLOTHING WILL KEEP YOU WARMER THAN A SINGLE HEAVY COAT. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO COVER ALL EXPOSED FLESH TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM FROSTBITE.
PLEASE REPORT SNOWFALL AND/OR ICE AMOUNTS TO THE NATL WEATHER SVC BY CALLING TOLL FREE AT 1-888-603-1402.OR BY EMAIL AT [email protected].
Andy, I assume all this means you still have not seen any significant improvement in energy consumption?
As far as using more energy in the cold - of course that's true but I would think you would still seem a similar percentage improvement (if you were using 500 Wh/mi in the cold before TS then I'd think you'd see 450 Wh/mi after if all was working properly). Aren't there others in similar cold/terrain that have seen improvement?
Mike
As far as using more energy in the cold - of course that's true but I would think you would still seem a similar percentage improvement (if you were using 500 Wh/mi in the cold before TS then I'd think you'd see 450 Wh/mi after if all was working properly). Aren't there others in similar cold/terrain that have seen improvement?
Mike
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree. That's been my position all along. Unless, of course, torque sleep just doesn't work in the cold. But Tesla hasn't said that yet.
And no, I've seen basically no improvement.
The caveat is that I was not tracking things very carefully before the update, but you can see some of my "before" numbers from the data Tesla sent.
My basis for claiming that I'm not seeing the torque sleep efficiency is the benchmarking against EV Trip Planner. I'm consistently right around 5% above what EV Trip Planner would estimate, give or take a little bit. Others who have seen efficiency improvements are beating EV Trip Planner estimates by 10% or so. That 15% or so difference is right in line with the 15% efficiency improvement Tesla predicted. (See this thread: Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner)
I don't know if anyone who lives in a really cold climate has seen significant efficiency improvement since torque sleep was introduced or not. I certainly have not.
ArtInCT
Always Learning
Andy:
I may have been confusing in my previous post.
I do think TS works in cold weather.
I do think TS works not as well in undulating terrain where you are going up and thus demanding torque.
Those S driven in flat terrain have the luxury of attaining speed and then essentially coasting.
Here in New England and where you are, that is not the case. We have ever present ups and downs.
Now back to the cold... from what I have been reading, heat and heated seats do consume quite a bit of power.
Also in deep cold, I here that regen is mitigated and at the worse case totally non-funtional until the battery pack is up to 45 degrees or more (from what I have read).
So I think it is plausible that any savings that TS is giving you is being consumed by heating, seat heaters, defrosters, heated steering wheel and also perhaps heating the battery pack. And if there is wet roads or snow on them, then that can really put the kebosh on efficiency.
I hope you can find the Tesla Living blog. I have put the link below. His blog is quite fun to read, there are many chapters that take you the reader on his Tesla Life.
Tesla Living
I may have been confusing in my previous post.
I do think TS works in cold weather.
I do think TS works not as well in undulating terrain where you are going up and thus demanding torque.
Those S driven in flat terrain have the luxury of attaining speed and then essentially coasting.
Here in New England and where you are, that is not the case. We have ever present ups and downs.
Now back to the cold... from what I have been reading, heat and heated seats do consume quite a bit of power.
Also in deep cold, I here that regen is mitigated and at the worse case totally non-funtional until the battery pack is up to 45 degrees or more (from what I have read).
So I think it is plausible that any savings that TS is giving you is being consumed by heating, seat heaters, defrosters, heated steering wheel and also perhaps heating the battery pack. And if there is wet roads or snow on them, then that can really put the kebosh on efficiency.
I hope you can find the Tesla Living blog. I have put the link below. His blog is quite fun to read, there are many chapters that take you the reader on his Tesla Life.
Tesla Living
Last edited:
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
While some of the terrain we drive in is hilly, there are enough relatively flat stretches of highway that torque sleep should be kicking in some of the time.
The battery heating / regen stuff is completely a non-issue, as Iwe've been handling that exactly the same way before and after the update, with the slight variations due to range mode being on now when driving, while it wasn't before. This should give some efficiency anyway, not hurt it.
We generally preheat the battery on shore power before leaving on the trips that I've been charting, and then also preheat some on battery power for the return trip. But as I said, we were doing that before the update too.
Also if you look at the numbers Tesla sent me, after subtracting off HVAC and 12V, there is just a difference of 8 wh/mi, which is nothing. That's noise.
I really hope Tesla can help get to the bottom of what is going on. They should be able to look at the logs and know exactly when torque sleep is active and when it isn't.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
This means nothing conclusive unless all other things are equal, which they aren't. The most likely cause for this is that EV Trip Planner has some systemic error in your situation, like maybe your tires are under inflated (a simple example that is not likely the case). To eliminate that possibility compare your car with another car (that saw an improvement when torque sleep appeared) doing the same exact trip at the same time. If your energy usage is worse than theirs then there's likely a problem with your car. But even so it could be something as simple as under inflated tires.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I had inflated all my tires to 45lbs using the device in this thread: Solution for easy and convenient maintenance of tire pressures at home
As discussed in that thread, it wasn't clear what the real pressure was, but it was within 2lbs of that.
I checked them using the a new digital tire gauge about two weeks ago, and they were all at about 42 lbs. I chose not to inflate them to 45 lbs at that time, because I wanted to be able to make valid comparisons if I was getting firmware updates. I suppose at this point I could reinflate them all to 45 pounds, but they are certainly all close enough to not be the cause of significant lack of efficiency.
As for finding another P85D driver who has experienced the increase in efficiency and then driving the same route, that may be easy to accomplish in California, where from what I understand there's a Tesla in practically every driveway, but as far as I know, I've got the only P85D in a pretty big area in upstate NY. And I'm not going to bother another P85D driver over something Tesla should be able to help me with. I have pretty solid evidence that something is amiss. Using EV Trip Planner as a benchmark is a pretty reasonable way to compare my results to others'. It may not be the very best way, but it's a reasonable one, and it's the best one I have access to.
I think Andy drives too fast! In my experience, torque sleep is hardly used at 75+. I currently have 2k miles on my P85D, @ 367 wh/mile, my lifetime on my old P85 was 360 wh/mile after 16k miles. (Just for comparison, my lifetime with my S85 was 355 wh/mile with 6k miles.)
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Speed is one of the things that I've been recording. Most of the trips my wife is the driver, and she has been setting TACC, when available, to 68. When it has not been available she almost certainly never goes above 70, and is probably closer to 65 most of the time, when on the highway. And about half the typical trip is not highway, but 50 or 55 MPH max speed, so I assure you we are not anywhere close to 70 or 75 MPH there. We also don't use TACC when not on the highway, because of how inefficient it is.
The main trip--between home and work--is 52 miles and change, and the driving time in EV Trip Planner with a factor of 1, which is what we use most of the time (occasionally we use something slightly different, depending on what happened that trip) is exactly 60 minutes.
The last trip I recorded I was the driver, and I actually set the TACC to 65, to try to see if speed might have been playing a factor, as someone here had indicated that they thought torque sleep wasn't kicking in at all at 70 MPH, and I normally would have set TACC at 70. It made no difference.
I'll be recording another trip with me as the driver again today (the reverse of the last trip), and will again set the TACC to 65. I'll post all my data to date this evening.
Driving speed does not explain why we're not seeing torque sleep efficiencies.
Edit: By the way, this should be incredibly obvious, but tezzla--you know you can't compare your wh/mi numbers with mine, right?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
