First SF-Tahoe trip in P85D

MarcG · Dec 15, 2014

Hi guys,

I got delivery of my P85D last Friday, 12/12/14, and since we've been getting snow in the mountains I decided to go on a day-trip to Tahoe yesterday (12/14/14).
The roads were mostly dry so I didn't get a chance to test out the AWD in the snow, but here are some stats on the charging & driving consumption:

1. Left SF with 90% charge, indicating 219 miles of EPA-rated range. Ambient temp: 10ºC, or 50ºF
2. Drove to the Roseville SC which is 110 miles away, averaging 75 mph, and arrived with 31% / 75 miles remaining
3. Super charged to 90% / 220 miles in about 45 minutes (I was the only Model S there)
4. Drove to Sugar Bowl ski resort which is 73 miles away and 6790 feet higher, averaging 70 mph, and arrived with 28% / 70 miles remaining
5. Even after putting the car to sleep, with ambient temps around 0ºC / 32ºF, I lost 2 miles of range while skiing for 6 hours
6. Drove back to Roseville SC, 73 miles away and 6790 feet lower, averaging 60 mph (traffic...) and arrived with 11% / 26 miles remaining
7. Super charged to 69% / 170 miles in about 30 minutes (there were 3 others charging but on different number stalls)
8. Drove back to SF, 110 miles away, averaging 65 mph (more traffic on 80), and arrived with 13% / 32 miles remaining

Here's a summary table of each driving event:

From	To	Actual Distance	Rated Miles Used	Avg Speed	Net Altitude Change
San Francisco	Roseville SC	110 miles	144 miles	75 mph	-92 feet
Roseville SC	Sugar Bowl	73 miles	150 miles	70 mph	6790 feet
Sugar Bowl	Roseville SC	73 miles	42 miles	60 mph	-6790 feet
Roseville SC	San Francisco	110 miles	138 miles	65 mph	92 feet

And here's a summary table of each charging event:

Location	Start Status	End Status	Energy Added	Avg Power	Time	Ambient Temp
San Francisco	50% / 120 miles	90% / 219 miles	34.0 kWh	4.8 kW	7 hours	10ºC / 50ºF
Roseville SC	31% / 75 miles	90% / 220 miles	50.15 kWh	69 kW	45 min	7ºC / 45ºF
Roseville SC	13% / 32 miles	69% / 170 miles	47.6 kWh	95 kW	30 min	11ºC / 52ºF

That's it for now! I'm looking forward to the long trip up to Oregon at the end of December so I can collect more geeky data.

In the meantime, I leave you with a couple of photos:

stevezzzz · Dec 15, 2014

Thanks for the report, Marc; she's a beauty.

The big question on my mind right now is this: what's your average kWh/mi so far? Did you keep any leg-by-leg stats for that value?

DavidM · Dec 15, 2014

Thanks for the chronology. Word to the wise - watch that front bumper on the concrete curb (1st photo). A near miss.

Kipernicus · Dec 15, 2014

Awesome! Nice pics.

Doesn't 220 at 90% strike anyone else as low for a brand new 85?

The first SF-Roseville leg averaged 309 Wh/mile (34kWh / 110 miles). That's good for an 85 at 75mph right? So the P85D is seeing some efficiency gains over standard 85?

MarcG · Dec 15, 2014

stevezzzz said:
Thanks for the report, Marc; she's a beauty.

The big question on my mind right now is this: what's your average kWh/mi so far? Did you keep any leg-by-leg stats for that value?

Oh good question, no sorry I didn't... will try to do that on the long trip up North!

- - - Updated - - -

DavidM said:
Thanks for the chronology. Word to the wise - watch that front bumper on the concrete curb (1st photo). A near miss.

Thanks for the heads-up! I noticed it after parking. Next time I'll raise the air suspension to High.

- - - Updated - - -

Kipernicus said:
Awesome! Nice pics.

Doesn't 220 at 90% strike anyone else as low for a brand new 85?

The first SF-Roseville leg averaged 309 Wh/mile (34kWh / 110 miles). That's good for an 85 at 75mph right? So the P85D is seeing some efficiency gains over standard 85?

The P95D is rated at 242 miles of range, even though I have the 19" wheels which is rated at 250 miles.
If you do the math on all the rated miles / percent capacity numbers I wrote, you'll see the theoretical range at 100% is right around 240-250.

As for highway range, I agree it seems to be pretty good! That front motor is definitely helping out with its different gearing than the rear motor.
I'll keep an eye on city vs. highway efficiency in the future.

Victory · Dec 15, 2014

Kipernicus said:
Awesome! Nice pics.

Doesn't 220 at 90% strike anyone else as low for a brand new 85?

The first SF-Roseville leg averaged 309 Wh/mile (34kWh / 110 miles). That's good for an 85 at 75mph right? So the P85D is seeing some efficiency gains over standard 85?

I suspect that's very efficient considering how much of that mileage is uphill. Perhaps the range is so low due to temperature. Or is that not included in the EPA rated range?

SFOTurtle · Dec 15, 2014

Kipernicus said:
Awesome! Nice pics.

Doesn't 220 at 90% strike anyone else as low for a brand new 85?

Yes

Eclectic · Dec 15, 2014

Thank you for taking the time to provide these details, they're very helpful and interesting.

I assume that you did not have the car in insane mode. Is this correct?

I'm a bit concerned about the energy usage and range...a few weeks ago I did a round trip from SF to Sac in my P85, using the Roseville SC, and ended up using only 120 miles of rated range for the 110 miles, with an average MPH of maybe a bit higher than yours. This could be an issue, as I'd hate to give up that much range with the P85D I have on order.

Lump · Dec 15, 2014

I hope you plan on getting paint protection, Xpel the front & Opti coat the rest ASAP.

Saghost · Dec 15, 2014

Kipernicus said:
Awesome! Nice pics.

Doesn't 220 at 90% strike anyone else as low for a brand new 85?

I thought that was a lot of the point of this post - the 242 mile EPA rating and the debate about whether it means the car is less efficient or just a change in methodology.

Clearly Tesla changed the rated miles curve to reach the new lower EPA number at 100% charge, which seems odd to me since I'm in the "new methodology" camp on the EPA argument (the MPGe numbers should have changed downward otherwise...)

The first SF-Roseville leg averaged 309 Wh/mile (34kWh / 110 miles). That's good for an 85 at 75mph right? So the P85D is seeing some efficiency gains over standard 85?

One data point is a little thin to do much with given all of the variables. Still, it is encouraging, and in line with Tesla's original announcement.
Walter

MarcG · Dec 15, 2014

Eclectic said:
Thank you for taking the time to provide these details, they're very helpful and interesting.

I assume that you did not have the car in insane mode. Is this correct?

I'm a bit concerned about the energy usage and range...a few weeks ago I did a round trip from SF to Sac in my P85, using the Roseville SC, and ended up using only 120 miles of rated range for the 110 miles, with an average MPH of maybe a bit higher than yours. This could be an issue, as I'd hate to give up that much range with the P85D I have on order.

No insane mode except once in the very beginning of the SF-Roseville leg to enter 101 and show off the acceleration to my friends.

Couple of points that may differ with your trip: it was probably warmer when you took it, and I'm not sure what the payload you had but we were 3 adults with all our ski gear (3 pairs of skis, boots, etc.)

ArtInCT · Dec 15, 2014

Very Nice Data MarcG.
Hey, you gotta be careful of those curbs.... did the parking assist start to warn you that you were too close?

The rated mileage used is always over the actuals from what I can see (if you combine the uphill and downhill legs of
Roseville to Sugarbowl to Roseville)...

It appears that you are getting 77% of the rated to actual miles.... 366 actual consumed 474 rated in your case.
But you had a lot of payload on board.

It could be your driving style and other aspects like winds, etc. Not to worry.

How was the driving experience itself?
I take it that this is your first Tesla...?

stevezzzz · Dec 15, 2014

MarcG said:
Oh good question, no sorry I didn't... will try to do that on the long trip up North!

Marc, you can pull up the average Wh/mi on the Trips display, available as a selection on the instrument cluster behind the steering wheel. Did your DS show you how to configure that display?

Many S owners never touch the Trip A meter, using it as a lifetime record of kWh consumed and Wh/mi achieved. I normally reset the Trip B meter twice a year, once when I swap from winter to summer tires, and then when I switch back again.

Kipernicus · Dec 15, 2014

Saghost said:
I thought that was a lot of the point of this post - the 242 mile EPA rating and the debate about whether it means the car is less efficient or just a change in methodology.

Clearly Tesla changed the rated miles curve to reach the new lower EPA number at 100% charge, which seems odd to me since I'm in the "new methodology" camp on the EPA argument (the MPGe numbers should have changed downward otherwise...)

One data point is a little thin to do much with given all of the variables. Still, it is encouraging, and in line with Tesla's original announcement.
Walter

Wait a minute - I thought the D was supposed to have more efficiency and higher rated range? Isn't that what Elon said at the announcement? When did all this new methodology come up?

Saghost · Dec 15, 2014

Kipernicus said:
Wait a minute - I thought the D was supposed to have more efficiency and higher rated range? Isn't that what Elon said at the announcement? When did all this new methodology come up?

Yup. That's what Elon said, and some of the information in the order page matches it. Then came this:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=65167

and all of this discussion related to it:

Range Reduced on Dual Motor Configs? - Page 2

The placard shown in the attachment shows slightly lower city MPGe (86 vs 88) and somewhat higher highway MPGe (94 vs 90) while showing an overall range of 242 miles - which you can't get to from 265 by any combination of the relative MPGe numbers.

There was a lot of discussion last year on Leaf forums about new methodology involving averaging the normal and range mode charge levels for the EPA rating - which may or may not be what happened on the new Tesla Placard.

Read this article for discussion about the Leaf change. AFAIK, Tesla hasn't retested/certified since the rule change until now:

2013 Nissan Leaf gets 75-mile range (actually 84) in new EPA test

Walter

p1sl · Dec 15, 2014

Kipernicus said:
Awesome! Nice pics.

Doesn't 220 at 90% strike anyone else as low for a brand new 85?

The first SF-Roseville leg averaged 309 Wh/mile (34kWh / 110 miles). That's good for an 85 at 75mph right? So the P85D is seeing some efficiency gains over standard 85?

I don't think this calculation is correct. He charged 50.1kWh at Roseville to get the car back to 220 (started at 219). So that is 455 Wh/mi...?
A PD rated mile does not equal the same energy unit as a non-D rated mile either, so using 144 PD RM for 110 actual mi is not as good as it seems. Hard to believe this car will go 275 miles at 65mph.

randompersonx · Dec 15, 2014

@MarcG I'd be careful about pulling all the way into spots like you did in that picture ... With a car so low to the ground, it's only a matter of time before you find a curb just slightly too high and scrape the bumper.

Even if you raise the air suspension the car may gradually lower over time to drop the car onto it.

Stop behind the curb, not over it.

Thanks for posting your experience for all of us living vicariously through you until we get our own deliveries

JRod0802 · Dec 15, 2014

Hi Marc. First of all, thank you for posting all of your experiences with us (in both this thread and others). So I know that in "Insane" mode, MotorTrend measured the 0-60 time as being 3.1 seconds. How is the 0-60 time when in "Sport" mode? Have you taken any objective measurements? Can you subjectively tell the difference? I'm guessing that most people will have the car in Sport mode most of the time, so knowing the acceleration rate in that mode seems like a good data point.

Also, and this is a question to anyone, I believe that Performance mode in the Roadster actually allowed the battery to get warmer to increase performance (is that true?). Is that how Insane mode works in the Model S? Or is the switch between Sport and Insane an instantaneous kind of thing?

Firewired · Dec 15, 2014

Saghost said:
Yup. That's what Elon said, and some of the information in the order page matches it. Then came this:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=65167

and all of this discussion related to it:

Range Reduced on Dual Motor Configs? - Page 2

The placard shown in the attachment shows slightly lower city MPGe (86 vs 88) and somewhat higher highway MPGe (94 vs 90) while showing an overall range of 242 miles - which you can't get to from 265 by any combination of the relative MPGe numbers.

There was a lot of discussion last year on Leaf forums about new methodology involving averaging the normal and range mode charge levels for the EPA rating - which may or may not be what happened on the new Tesla Placard.

Read this article for discussion about the Leaf change. AFAIK, Tesla hasn't retested/certified since the rule change until now:

2013 Nissan Leaf gets 75-mile range (actually 84) in new EPA test

Walter

walter,

what are you thinking? I am soon to be new owner with my P85D just competing production. I am little bit worried about the range meaning I can't have my cake and eat it too, and highway trips become more of a hassle. Do you think based on what he is reporting that that it is still in line of increased efficiency on a level surface with warmer temp at 65mph? As well as this poorer showing was due to the worst of all worlds: higher speeds, cooler temps and elevation changes?

Saghost · Dec 15, 2014

Firewired said:
walter,

what are you thinking? I am soon to be new owner with my P85D just competing production. I am little bit worried about the range meaning I can't have my cake and eat it too, and highway trips become more of a hassle. Do you think based on what he is reporting that that it is still in line of increased efficiency on a level surface with warmer temp at 65mph? As well as this poorer showing was due to the worst of all worlds: higher speeds, cooler temps and elevation changes?

Three people in the car, and a ski rack on the roof, with a single data point. I'm thinking I don't know enough to draw conclusions yet.

Personally, I'm confident that the EPA data points to better highway economy and a change to the test methodology. But I don't have anything in the game - I might be buying a Model X in a year or two, if things go well, maybe - so for the moment I'm just an interested observer.

The only thing I don't understand is why Tesla re-arranged the rated range bars to match 242 at 100%, instead of at the 90-ish percent the data suggests it comes from.
Walter

First SF-Tahoe trip in P85D

Active Member

R;SigS;P85D;SigX;S90D;XP100D;3LR;YLR

P2624, Delivered

Model S Res#P1440

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Banned

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Always Learning

R;SigS;P85D;SigX;S90D;XP100D;3LR;YLR

Model S Res#P1440

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads