Range - Model S Performance Ludicrous Mode

[Phil1710]

I just changed my order from the Model S Long Range (375 miles range) to the Model S Performance (365 miles range )

Does anyone know how much the Ludicrous mode effects the range, I was shocked to see only a 10 mile difference between the to specs but i would guess this advertised range is with ludicrous disabled

 

[WannabeOwner]

how much the Ludicrous mode effects the range

Here's my 2p worth

The only time range matters is when it matters. i.e. you are on a "range challenged" journey. The rest of the time you leave home in the morning with a full tank of fuel, max range, but you don't actually drive that far.

On range-challenged days a number of things happen IME:

You probably home-charge to 100% for max-range. Ideally you pre-condition the car on "shore power" before you set off.

You are probably chugging along the motorway (you aren't going to be doing 300 miles on back roads, right?)

You get held up by traffic / roadworks somewhat.

In those scenarios you have pretty much ideal-economy-consumption and Ludicrous isn't going to make any difference. And (not sure about latest Raven) using Range Mode turns off the bigger motor when "just cruising" which extends range a bit (how much? Debatable if worth it ... but I use it from habit)

If you are nipping to the shops and happen to draw up alongside something pathetic (you know, like a Lambo or Zonda ) then you might use a "little more energy than normal" , but for long journeys I don't think it matters, and road conditions/holdups usually mean I get more range than I planned for.

One edge-case is when you are going up motorway, then off into the countryside, and then back again later/tomorrow, and the "off motorway" bit, and also the distance from "final motorway Supercharger to turn-off" is such that there there-and-back is close to max range. If you can charge at destination that's great (even 13 AMP plug can help) ... but those journeys are worst case, and also where Ludicrous might help to "clear the traffic" on the straights. Worst case I charge at a 3rd party charging site at my destination - pretty much all of them have been universally dreadful.

I plan my journeys with A Better Route Planner, and it seems uncannily accurate (except for Traffic/Roadworks where I gain a bit of extra contingency )

 

[Saghost]

I just changed my order from the Model S Long Range (375 miles range) to the Model S Performance (365 miles range )

Does anyone know how much the Ludicrous mode effects the range, I was shocked to see only a 10 mile difference between the to specs but i would guess this advertised range is with ludicrous disabled

How much Ludicrous affects range depends entirely on your right foot.

There is no difference in efficiency between a Ludicrous car in Ludicrous and one not in Ludicrous at a given level of acceleration; the motors are the same, the gearing is the same.

If you drive it gently in Ludicrous mode, you'll get the same results as driving it gently in Sport or even in Chill.

If you hammer it in Ludicrous, that's different. The extreme acceleration comes from extreme current levels, which have higher losses in the wiring and electronics.

The small difference noted comes from the higher weight and rolling resistance of the bigger rear motor. In the US, Performance cars may also have different tires equipped, stickier rubber for better grip has more rolling resistance - but the EPA rating difference is larger than the one you quoted, likely because of the tires.

 

[henleyregatta]

The quoted difference in range is effectively the penalty of carrying around the bigger performance motor on the rear axle and all the gubbins that hangs off that (i.e. the effect of the extra mass and any additional friction losses). It really doesn't have anything to do with how the car is driven, that's down to you.

It's worth pointing out that you're extremely unlikely to make rated range in either car in the UK at any time. We don't have the perfect Californian weather or glass-smooth roads on which achieving those figures depends. A bit of cold, a few puddles driven through or (heavens!) a head wind and those numbers become meaningless. I very much doubt you'd see worse of an effect in the Performance car as compared to the standard LR (i.e. the real-life range loss effects would be pretty much the same).

The rest of it is down to you and how you drive. Other above me have pointed out much of what's important. From my experience (with, it has to be said, a much lesser specified car), the biggest factor by miles is the speed you cruise at, rather than how you get to that speed. Cruising at 60 MPH makes a stupidly large difference to the effective range, compared to 70 or higher. Against which, the odd lead-footed moment to get to that speed really doesn't register (...and is good for the soul, to boot).

Plus, I assume you're UK based. In which case, either car's got more than enough range at any time of year to get you further and drive for longer than your bladder is comfortable. If I could justify the cost, I would absolutely go for the Performance and keep Ludicrous on full-time without hesitation.

I suspect a bigger share of running cost differences will be tyre rubber than electricity though

 

[WannabeOwner]

I suspect a bigger share of running cost differences will be tyre rubber

I have got 40K miles out of each set of Tyres for P90D ... a lot more than would have expected. A lot of my miles are motorway, but I don't hesitate away from the lights ... and certainly my first set of boots was subjected to every mate I have ever know ... and some more besides ... wanting a Demo. Never got that much from the Eco Golf I had before, and that did exactly the same mix of journeys.

I've read that manual (or automatic) gear change causes some "jerk" on tyres and adds to tyre-wear. Traction control is superb on Tesla (maybe all EVs ... a lot easier to control electric motor than bits of metal going up and down ...) so perhaps those reduce tyre wear enough to be tangible.

I reckon Cost-of-ownership looks a lot better than ICE on all fronts

 

[henleyregatta]

I have got 40K miles out of each set of Tyres for P90D ... a lot more than would have expected.
....
I reckon Cost-of-ownership looks a lot better than ICE on all fronts

Thank you for that - my initial comment was as much tongue-in-cheek as anything but your response is great data. I'm only a 75D - quite a bit slower than you but not that much lighter, and I confess I wasn't expecting much in the way of tyre life (I've ahem made sure I've used the full capability of the drivetrain ahem a few times myself). However, I'm 20K in and I'm struggling to see any visible wear on any of the tyres - not bad for something that heavy driven that quickly.

Add to that the savings on servicing compared to ICE... well, we're not trying to talk people out of going electric so we're not doing anyone any harm here, are we?

 

[SDRick]

I was under the impression that the range is 375 miles or 345 miles for Ludacris Performance?

 

[WannabeOwner]

I was under the impression that the range is 375 miles or 345 miles for Ludacris Performance?

I think the official figures are a bit useless. I know that is true of ICE too, typically only useful as a comparative figure (until a company "games" it ...). But a real-world-range figure is important for EV because refuelling pumps are not on every intersection, it takes time to refuel, and planning a journey is dependent on having a half decent figure.

That is a different thing to knowing the "average fuel consumption" which is useful in calculating "running costs" (and for which the published figure may be useful). But given that EV is 4 or 5 times cheaper than ICE the exact amount of savings is probably not critical to pretty much everyone.

My suggestion would be that to try some sample long journeys in A Better Route Planner (fiddle with the Weather settings, and crank up your speed if you are inclined to press-on) and see what you get

 

[SDRick]

I pointed out the discrepancy because the OP was under the impression that there was only a 10 mile difference between performance and nonperformance, which is incorrect.

 

[WannabeOwner]

I pointed out the discrepancy because the OP was under the impression that there was only a 10 mile difference between performance and nonperformance, which is incorrect.

Good point, thanks. Either way, if max Range is important to someone (before buying the car) I think an actual route calculation is the answer, rather than a potentially misleading "Government/Whatever Approved Figure"

 

[Saghost]

I pointed out the discrepancy because the OP was under the impression that there was only a 10 mile difference between performance and nonperformance, which is incorrect.

This table suggests the 10 miles the OP posted might be more accurate than the posted EPA numbers...

Tesla Range Table - Teslike.com

 

[LukeT]

While the claimed range/consumption figures are pretty meaningless I reckon, in my limited experience so far, that they're no further out than ICE ones. Long journey in good weather with some traffic and a generally lightish foot got us pretty close. Well within 10% anyway. Add 10mph to cruising speed and that figure is very different, but still about 350Wh/mile or 285 mile range.

I did my same 200 mile journey in a pre-Raven P car and my Raven non-P. Both are obviously nippy enough that you need a very heavy foot to use a rate of acceleration the non-P can't do, and in the real world the difference in kwh used was close enough to zero that I think I'd have to repeat the test many many times to report a number with any reliability. On quoted range the two cars differ by I think 10%. I have no reason to suspect that's an underestimate.

 

[SDRick]

This table suggests the 10 miles the OP posted might be more accurate than the posted EPA numbers...

Tesla Range Table - Teslike.com

Another data point is good. I did not know this table existed, thanks!