2024 Highland M3 side-by-side comparison videos

[holmgang]

My car doesn't have a low-regen mode which is something else that Tesla has taken away. I live in a climate where we get a lot of freezing over this time of year, and it gets really old having to mash the accelerator so I can brake hard and scrub the ice and salt off of the brakes.

Even super gentle application of the brakes are sufficient to "scrub" ice and salt off.

If you want a more thorough use of friction brakes, set the car into service mode, then activate the brake burnishing program which will fully disable regen. You don't have to run the full program, but it's a good idea to do it occasionally anyway.

I still believe it's more about programming simplicity for whatever they're currently working on, some part of FSD probably.
But there's no way it's about range. That makes zero sense.

It's not about 'forcing' higher realized range for drivers. It's about getting higher range in official testing results, because testing regime requires cycling through all the modes available on the car.

 

[primedive]

Even super gentle application of the brakes are sufficient to "scrub" ice and salt off.

If you want a more thorough use of friction brakes, set the car into service mode, then activate the brake burnishing program which will fully disable regen. You don't have to run the full program, but it's a good idea to do it occasionally anyway.


It's not about 'forcing' higher realized range for drivers. It's about getting higher range in official testing results, because testing regime requires cycling through all the modes available on the car.

My drives are relatively short and low speed, with lots of stop signs, so to even get “gentle” application of the brakes, I need to go above the speed limit and then brake harder. The problem doesn’t resolve itself if I just drive “normally” since the brakes never even come into play in that case.

Everyone’s situation is different, which is why these things should be configurable.

The brake burnishing option looks interesting, maybe I’ll try that when the winter is finally over.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

It's not about 'forcing' higher realized range for drivers. It's about getting higher range in official testing results, because testing regime requires cycling through all the modes available on the car.

Okay, so the regime has to test another mode. So what?
Roll and Creep aren't going to affect actual range, whether in a test or not.

If Tesla doesn't come out publicly and say why they removed the modes, then we're all just speculating.

 

[holmgang]

Okay, so the regime has to test another mode. So what?
Roll and Creep aren't going to affect actual range, whether in a test or not.

So the test cycles involve repeatedly slowing the car to a stop. When the car regain more energy in the stopping phases due to Hold, it yields higher efficiency results and longer published range.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

So the test cycles involve repeatedly slowing the car to a stop. When the car regain more energy in the stopping phases due to Hold, it yields higher efficiency results and longer published range.

Okay, this chart doesn't show the energy gain from regen.
It gives the mph, so thought experiment: If this test had an average mph of ~20 (19.59), and roll regen cuts off, for example, at ~10 mph (?), then the energy gain would be ~half, very roughly and conservatively estimated. Because I'd assume the regen gain falls off as you get near 0 mph, meaning 20-10 mph would gain more energy than 10-0 mph. I just don't know the percentages.

But it's a moot debate without the energy numbers from this test?
Because I would still be of the opinion, if we knew the 10-0 mph energy gain, it would be a minuscule amount, that barely shows a blip in regards to EPA range.
By all means, please someone correct me if you can show otherwise.

 

[holmgang]

Okay, this chart doesn't show the energy gain from regen.
It gives the mph, so thought experiment: If this test had an average mph of ~20 (19.59), and roll regen cuts off, for example, at ~10 mph (?), then the energy gain would be ~half, very roughly and conservatively estimated. Because I'd assume the regen gain falls off as you get near 0 mph, meaning 20-10 mph would gain more energy than 10-0 mph. I just don't know the percentages.

But it's a moot debate without the energy numbers from this test?
Because I would still be of the opinion, if we knew the 10-0 mph energy gain, it would be a minuscule amount, that barely shows a blip in regards to EPA range.
By all means, please someone correct me if you can show otherwise.

Why would that chart show energy gain from regen? It's a chart of the EPA's testing protocol.

You're certainty free to purchase a dynanometer or find a controlled environment to conduct the test and produce the results yourself.

Can you show how your hypothesis about simplicity or FSD has any supporting feasibility, given that the feature was already existed so no marginal work was needed for simplicity, and the car has always been able to control its speed down to 0 (eg with TACC) independent of how the deceleration is used.

I still believe it's more about programming simplicity for whatever they're currently working on, some part of FSD probably.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

Why would that chart show energy gain from regen? It's a chart of the EPA's testing protocol.

You're certainty free to purchase a dynanometer or find a controlled environment to conduct the test and produce the results yourself.

Can you show how your hypothesis about simplicity or FSD has any supporting feasibility, given that the feature was already existed so no marginal work was needed for simplicity, and the car has always been able to control its speed down to 0 (eg with TACC) independent of how the deceleration is used.

You put the chart in, presumably to support your statement:

"So the test cycles involve repeatedly slowing the car to a stop. When the car regain more energy in the stopping phases due to Hold, it yields higher efficiency results and longer published range."

If you're trying to make a point about regen energy with testing, how about using a chart that actually shows something about energy!
That chart is useless in this conversation.
No, I don't have time to do my own testing. That's why I left it open for others to add if they had anything they had seen. That's a big purpose of this forum, to combine all of our knowledge in one place as a resource for all.

I shared my opinion/theory. It's hardly a hypothesis. Simply an idea, since programming can be difficult when changing an established program. Each change can have unforeseen effects on the overall program. So if they're writing the code for FSD 12, and it has new portions that they test, which end up not meshing with the Roll or Creep modes, and they try other fixes unsuccessfully, they might just removed the cause of the problem rather than take more time to write more code that gels with those modes. Not a hypothesis, just an educated guess really. You are freely willing to be against my idea. I happen to be against the theory about range being the reason.
We can agree to disagree.
As I stated earlier, we're all speculating. And this is getting off topic for this thread.

 

[ken_neth]

When the car has been parked for some time and temperatures have been swinging above and below the freezing point, the brakes start to get frozen over

Yes, I have similar conditions during winter, more severe some years than others and I'm sure never so severe as yours.
I use "Defrost car" in 'climate' and "precondition" in 'schedule' before leaving when snow and ice have come. I'm not sure if those affect brake condition specifically but have not had the car refuse to move without force as I've often had with ICE cars so I believe they might. In any case I don't use Regen at all until I've gotten to a lower elevation or out of the snow (If I do - depends on how low comes the snow)

 

[Technokrat]

Great walkabout on the comparisons. Thank you so much!

Great videos btw in your first video and timestamp 4 minutes 16 seconds, the screen shows its gone to hold while you go looking for it

 

[mknmike]

@mknmike Creep and Hold mode removed via a software update a few months back - not just for highland but others as well. I recall it had to do with some folks complaining that they were not getting stated range - software update was to take variability out of the range equation which would (should?) lead to more accurate (and better) range figures.

I was wondering about this. I just ran an update from February on our new car this morning before my wife took it to work. I wonder if we lost the three options.

 

[Elec Man]

Well, I guess this settles it on the Creep Roll Hold setting. It’s gone. I wonder what they have the 2024 set in. I hope they don’t end up taking it away from my 2023

View attachment 1029378

I think they’re considering putting an option to turn regenerative braking completely off since some customers want the vehicle to drive like an ICE car and be able to coast. Having several options for regen, including off, makes the most sense to me. The vehicle needs more info explaining what these different modes do.