-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Yeah but get ready for a whole new list of complaints since it's currently only available while in range mode. Does that really count?
So I just drove the car for 40 miles on a planned route. Did the route last week. It was in the mid 60s out and late afternoon and got 304 Wh/mi and 90% highway and TACC on when on highway. Tonight it was around 50 degrees and I got 327 Wh/mi. Now I expected the colder weather to decrease the efficiency by around 5-10% but was expecting if true that the torque sleep was enabled and supposed 10% range increase to be true that it would cancel out the decreased efficiency due to the cold weather. Unfortunately it seems like 2.2.139 did not enable torque sleep. And I was driving with Range Mode on. But more testing will be required to know for sure.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Just did a back-to-back test on 2.2.139, once with Range Mode on, the other with it off. Same route as I did with my P85 vs. P85D range comparison back on 12/22.
Results (reset Trip A for each run):
With Range Mode On:
45F, 17.5mi, 6.8kWh, 385Wh/mi
With Range Mode Off:
46F, 17.5mi, 6.7kWh, 382Wh/mi
Effectively, no difference. I don't think Torque Sleep is active yet.
Results (reset Trip A for each run):
With Range Mode On:
45F, 17.5mi, 6.8kWh, 385Wh/mi
With Range Mode Off:
46F, 17.5mi, 6.7kWh, 382Wh/mi
Effectively, no difference. I don't think Torque Sleep is active yet.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
Sorry yak. most electronics, if they're going to fail, fail in the first month of ownership. Hoping this is the only one and rest will now be trouble-free.
Thankfully it appears it was a safe degradation.
Good luck and safe onward journey
From 6.1 thread:
So when previously it was wondered, whether Tesla’s communication could be any worse, the answer is yes. Now they are directly lying.
So when previously it was wondered, whether Tesla’s communication could be any worse, the answer is yes. Now they are directly lying.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Don't know. It could be that the conditions of my route don't lend to Torque Sleep being effective - it's quite hilly around here. We need to see more data from other people doing back to back loops with and without Range Mode enabled.
Why on earth would they do this? The only reason that I can come up with is that they don't want people to use "torque sleep" as a matter of normal course. Is there something in the way that it operates that would reduce the longevity of some vehicle components in some way? What they've done is almost disingenuous.
For us folks in the frozen north, this is a real PITA. In the winter at the -20 temps we've been getting (when you need all the range you can get) you're stuck with barely functional cabin heating? I don't about anybody else's spouse, but explaining to my wife that we need to use the seat heaters to compensate for our having to cut cabin heat is going to lead to some long discussions about whether buying this Tesla was a good idea. And it it will lead to the Tesla being parked while we take the A6 on trips.
Sigh... I'm a great supporter of what Tesla is doing, but I have to say that this is getting tiresome. :crying:
As a side note, I tried "Range mode" for the first time on the way into work this AM. I definitely had reduced energy consumption. I don't know how much was due to cutting out the heater and whatever else, and how much if any was due to "torque sleep" (if it exists).
Last edited:
Adm
Active Member
Stop whining and tell Tesla customer support how you feel about it and if you are smart, make a list with other P85D owners who feel the same.
It's not like Tesla is completely insensitive to constructive critisism by its customers presented in an organized fashion. Widodh made a petition for 3 phase charging and convinced Tesla. You could do the same.
Dammit - as I'm driving around with brutal energy consumption in the -20s these last few days, I think I've earned the right to whine! In February whining is a well entrenched Canadian tradition, and nobody will force us to give it up without a fight!
It's too early for a petition. I'm sure Tesla has people monitoring these forums, this will be a big enough issue for them to notice and I'm sure that something will be forthcoming - either an update or an explanation. Unlike 3 phase charging, this is just a simple software update.
Many of us have done this and I encourage others to do likewise. TM does monitor this and the TM forum. While it is a first world problem I believe constructive criticism/sharing concerns about shortcomings of TM or any company failing to deliver what you contracted and paid for is a little different than whining.
I drove a constant 65 mph with cruise control on, range mode on and sport mode. There was very little traffic, relatively flat terrain and the outside temp was 27 F. I did not use cabin heat, only seat heaters. I was getting energy consumption of 318-320 Wh/M, which is somewhat better than I have ever experienced. I believe that this update has provided a measurable improvement in range at highway speeds. However, the first part of my drive this morning was on city roads with an average speed of 45mph and many stoplights. Over about 8 miles of that, I think my energy consumption was either higher or at the least exactly the same.
- - - Updated - - -
There are other possible explanations. My guess is that they can either optimize the balance between engines for performance or for economy. With range mode off, they would favor economy. I expected them to call this new mode "normal" and put it on the "sport/insane" control, but by making it part of range mode you have the option to have fast accelleration in addition to increased range at cruise speeds.
I'm eager to try a 0-60 test to see if I can validate the claim that they have improved it too. Perhaps on my lunch break...
- - - Updated - - -
There are other possible explanations. My guess is that they can either optimize the balance between engines for performance or for economy. With range mode off, they would favor economy. I expected them to call this new mode "normal" and put it on the "sport/insane" control, but by making it part of range mode you have the option to have fast accelleration in addition to increased range at cruise speeds.
I'm eager to try a 0-60 test to see if I can validate the claim that they have improved it too. Perhaps on my lunch break...
I've been driving up to San Francisco this week from the south bay which has provided a nice test for the new .139 release. Long story short, if torque sleep is working, the impact is not perceptible - or at least it is not affected by the range mode setting.
A bit more detail - for those not in the bay area, going from Mountain View to San Francisco on 101 is a 40 mile mostly a flat drive. On my old S85, a drive to the city would probably be in the range of 300Wh/mile depending on speed. On Monday, when I drove up (on firmware .113, range mode off), I was getting roughly 330 Wh/mile. During the time that I drove there was little traffic, and I mostly used TACC at around 70-72 mph.
Last night I got the .139 update, and did the same drive to the city - this time with range mode on. Again, little traffic, TACC on at 72mph. I averaged about 328 Wh/mile. Well within the likely measurement error of my test, definitely not a 10% improvement.
During the ride I switched range mode off a couple of times over a 2 mile period to see if on the energy consumption chart I could see a difference - no change. Another poster on TMC suggested a perceptible difference in motor noise - I did not pick this up, though 101 has a very hard surface and is quite noisy with 21" wheels.
Overall, I'm not surprised. I would expect Tesla to confirm in the release notes the fact that torque sleep is in fact active. If this is the famed torque sleep release, then we're all in for some big disappointments.
One nice thing - I'm glad to see efficiency in the 325-330 Wh/m range. I don't do a lot of freeway driving and my average on my D has been 398 Wh/m over the 1200 miles I've had it (vs 348 for my S85 over 19k miles). Moreover, on 280 (same route as 101 but much more hilly), the efficiency didn't reduce that much. On my ride home last night, I got 345 Wh/m which is not bad. It seems that the D regens a lot more power than the S85 did.
A bit more detail - for those not in the bay area, going from Mountain View to San Francisco on 101 is a 40 mile mostly a flat drive. On my old S85, a drive to the city would probably be in the range of 300Wh/mile depending on speed. On Monday, when I drove up (on firmware .113, range mode off), I was getting roughly 330 Wh/mile. During the time that I drove there was little traffic, and I mostly used TACC at around 70-72 mph.
Last night I got the .139 update, and did the same drive to the city - this time with range mode on. Again, little traffic, TACC on at 72mph. I averaged about 328 Wh/mile. Well within the likely measurement error of my test, definitely not a 10% improvement.
During the ride I switched range mode off a couple of times over a 2 mile period to see if on the energy consumption chart I could see a difference - no change. Another poster on TMC suggested a perceptible difference in motor noise - I did not pick this up, though 101 has a very hard surface and is quite noisy with 21" wheels.
Overall, I'm not surprised. I would expect Tesla to confirm in the release notes the fact that torque sleep is in fact active. If this is the famed torque sleep release, then we're all in for some big disappointments.
One nice thing - I'm glad to see efficiency in the 325-330 Wh/m range. I don't do a lot of freeway driving and my average on my D has been 398 Wh/m over the 1200 miles I've had it (vs 348 for my S85 over 19k miles). Moreover, on 280 (same route as 101 but much more hilly), the efficiency didn't reduce that much. On my ride home last night, I got 345 Wh/m which is not bad. It seems that the D regens a lot more power than the S85 did.
MarcG
Active Member
Quick update on my end. I've just received the following email from Jerome in response to my email to him last night:
To which I asked, what version am I expected to receive? I just want to confirm 2.2.139 is the one that includes torque sleep.
MarcG
Active Member
Yep saw that. Just want the confirmation to come from the "horse's mouth" since there is no verbiage in the 2.2.139 release notes that indicate any improvement to range due to torque sleep. I understand it's in the RANGE MODE (i) info button, but it seems odd that it's hidden away there, instead of being proudly featured in the release notes.
Similar threads
- Article
