Using Track Mode Re-Biasing without loss of range?

[clyde]

I really like the option of setting the power delivery to the drive axles in track mode for regular (non-track) driving. I live in a mountainous environment, and prefer at least a 60:40 rear biasing. But I do not understand why resetting bias must be automatically associated with range loss. Listening to the hum and noise under the hood when TM is engaged, and guessing by the change in range estimate it sure seems that way, even if I turn off the extra cooling and regen options on the screen.

Question: is there a way to reset power bias without range loss due to all the other goodies that are engaged in track mode? A simple biasing adjustment ONLY?

 

[MasterC17]

I really like the option of setting the power delivery to the drive axles in track mode for regular (non-track) driving. I live in a mountainous environment, and prefer at least a 60:40 rear biasing. But I do not understand why resetting bias must be automatically associated with range loss. Listening to the hum and noise under the hood when TM is engaged, and guessing by the change in range estimate it sure seems that way, even if I turn off the extra cooling and regen options on the screen.

Question: is there a way to reset power bias without range loss due to all the other goodies that are engaged in track mode? A simple biasing adjustment ONLY?

Sadly, no. At least not at this time.

Unless you get the MPP Party Box.

 

[Dallas J]

Two thoughts here.

1 - You already have a 40:60 power dist going by some data on the power to each motor. ~180front, ~255rear.
2 - Correct me if Im wrong, but you arent changing the total distribution of power but are reducing total power at one end to effect that distribution.

If its 180kw front and 255kw rear, its not dropping one and raising the other. Its just dropping one.

 

[clyde]

Please cite the source for your opinions that:

1. there is a permanent 40:60 power distribution on M3P

2. redistributing power in track mode to, say, 10:90 under your assumption would mean a considerable net loss of torque up front, without any gain in the rear. This would be detrimental for driving on the track, as total available torque up front would diminish by 75%. No one would be happy with that kind of loss of power, no?

 

[MasterC17]

The bias only affects the split whilst turning, the less steering input you give, the less the "balance" will be affected. e.g. If you apply 120 degrees of steering angle with a 0:100 bias this would be done by reducing the front motor power considerably, as you are not increasing the rear motor power. However, as you get closer to a 0 degree steering angle the power to the front motor will come back to normal. It's a bit of an odd method of achieving the desired outcome but it does work nicely.

FWIW, I found a 40:60 bias to be the best for driving on the track as reducing the front motor power slightly in a turn allows for a bit of rotation, which actually gets you through the corner quicker.

 

[Dallas J]

Thanks, that's good info to know. Ive heard from some other friends 40/60 works well also.

 

[clyde]

Truly excellent information, and my question fully answered.
Thanks, MasterC17!