-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Jgdixon
Active Member
Repeated this drive this evening (same weather conditions as above). First leg of trip (home to Baton Rouge) was same result - no improvement in range. So, about midway there I pressed the Voice Command and stated "REPORT - no range improvement with latest firmware". Got the acknowledgement that it was reported and continued on to the Baton Rouge Supercharger. About 10 miles out of Baton Rouge I noticed what I perceived to be an improvement in energy usage but I had slowed from 70 MPH to 65 MPH.
Departed the Supercharger to head home and again set TACC to 65 MPH (60 MPH speed limit until well out of Baton Rouge). Traffic was a bit heavy so TACC was varying speed from 55 to 65 MPH. Increased speed to 70 MPH for the last 35 miles of the return trip.
While not as dramatic as some others are reporting, I've seen an improvement - as if someone flipped a switch shortly after I sent the report/logs...
Here is the last 30 miles:
The whole trip ended being 333 Wh/mi (with the first 50 miles consuming about 355 Wh/mi):
So, at this point I'm encouraged.
Maybe regen is more efficient. The more regen you demand out of one wheel the less efficient it is. Spread that same amount of regen to all 4 wheels and you get 4 wheels regening at a higher efficiency. Same amount of slowing but a larger part of that energy coming back into the pack.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
No difference for me on .140.
I guess I have to conclude that the terrain around here is not amenable to torque sleep.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I drove VERY forward looking with my P and hardly ever used the brakes. The TACC is TERRIBLE in that sense, I will switch it off for my tests (I will go to Orlando now, let's see what the results are).
The average since my last charging session went UP to 436 wh/mile. I am hardly getting 150 miles out of a 90 % charge, that is frustrating.
From the video wk057 posted, I think this consumption might be normal for a D in Insane/No Range mode and city driving. His D was in the 500's in the beginning and stayed in the 400's for a long time until it finally got down on the highway.
I want to see how the Tesla stated city range can be achieved ! Must be a city with no traffic lights !
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Would you please consider including some data for a trip or two in the following thread, so we can see how your efficiency compares to mine, and hopefully to other people's who also aren't seeing improvement, as it compares to EV Trip Planner as a benchmark?
Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner
So far, using EV Trip Planner as a benchmark has been interesting, in that those people who have seen increases in efficiency are doing better than EV Trip Planner would predict, and my results have been worse than EV Trip Planner predicts. But to date, I am the only person who has posted who has not seen an improvement in efficiency. The thread would be more useful for everyone if more people--those of us not seeing improvements and those people who are--all participated.
Thanks!
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
I put my 241 mile trip on there and worked hard to get EV Trip Planner tuned to the same trip time and average temps. I saw a 10% improvement over EV Trip Planner in my P85D with .140 - Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner - Page 2
I am sure that all are aware, but please remember that it appears that it is important to turn on "range" mode to get the torque sleep improvements.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Thanks very much, Cottonwood.
And on the note about turning on range mode, I was about to post about this, and this seems as good a place as any.
I spoke with Tesla tech support today, to alert them to the fact that I was not seeing the torque sleep efficiency improvements, and to see if they could pull my logs to see if torque sleep was actually working on my car. The person I spoke to was very knowledgeable on the subject, and read me some information on torque sleep that I had not heard or seen before. It may well be new, though the first couple of sentences sounded very similar to (and may have been word for word) some of what we've heard from Jerome Guillen on the topic. I asked if he could email it to me, so I could post it, and he checked, but he was not allowed to do that. I'd urge anyone interested to call and have it read to you.
The gist of it is this:
There are definitely significant differences in how torque sleep functions with range mode on vs. range mode off. While there are some efficiencies gained with range mode off, significantly more are gained with range mode on. Torque sleep benefits are not only for highway driving. An example was given of the vehicle stopped at a light, not requiring torque. What was read to me also said very clearly that the front engine was more efficient. There was also something about it being possible, in range mode, that under acceleration users may hear or feel something from the front engine. A three-letter abbreviation was used, that I'm failing to remember now, but I think it started with an H and ended with a V, and seemed to be a euphemism for any number of sounds, whining, etc.
My impression was that it is unlikely that a future firmware update is simply going to move all the torque sleep efficiencies now found in range mode into all modes. I think that for a good long time, and possibly permanently, to get all the benefits of torque sleep we will have to use range mode.
As soon as I hung up the phone I started writing the following e-mail message, which I have now sent:
Suggestion for battery pre-heating and charge-end scheduling sent to Tesla
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I'll get some more experience with TS as I have always used my car then switch (for the first time ever) over to Range mode 
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Well, whereas I did not see improvement for the first few days after getting .140, I am definitely seeing range improvement now - both with Range Mode ON and OFF. In fact, I believe I am now about where I was with my P85+. Mild weather and no wind and I'm able to achieve very close to my Rated Miles at 65 MPH (around 300 Wh/mi).
Mike
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
That's certainly promising.
Actually it was your saying that you started seeing an improvement as soon as you reported that you were seeing no improvement that prompted me to call in today. I'm mainly kidding, but I really did think that perhaps there would be some evidence visible that somehow something failed to actually enable torque sleep, and that something could be done to then have it properly enabled. I didn't have anything to lose by calling, so I did.
I mentioned to the rep I spoke to that there seemed to be at least a few other forum members with .139 experiencing the same thing I was, and wondered if there was some chance that somehow some versions of .139 somehow failed to actually initiate torque sleep on some cars. He said he hadn't heard of anything like that happening, but that stranger things have happened in the past.
I am still waiting to hear back.
SeminoleFSU
Voluntaryist
I know this is off topic, but does anyone think the performance improvements Elon talked about for the P85 would be in these updates too? He said a coming soon firmware release would make the P85 slightly faster
dennis
Model S Plaid
That TLA is NVH, which stands for Noise, Vibration and Harshness.
Noise, vibration, and harshness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yeah, I honestly don't believe the two events are related but the coincidence is hard to ignore.
I don't believe "number of wheels" "spreading regen" to be a differentiator at all.
For one thing, there's a single motor for each pair of wheels, so comparing 1 wheel to 4 doesn't make sense... for a single motor car the back pair of wheels drive the single motor (in regen mode) at a given speed, producing regen.
The front pair of wheels will do the same with the front motor.
As has been earlier noted, there may be some inefficiencies in the newer MOTORS that allow for increased regen ability, but that has nothing to do with the number of wheels driving them.
One could argue that with weight shift during deceleration, front wheels could provide more traction, and hence more regen under circumstances... but unless the rears were losing traction under the same circumstances, that argument doesn't really hold either.
Similar threads
- Article
