You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh good question, no sorry I didn't... will try to do that on the long trip up North!
I'm not Walter, but I'll give you my opinion. I don't think we have enough information here to really draw a whole lot of conclusions. But based on the Wh/mile numbers you can derive from the info MarcG posted I'd say things don't look too great. I recall usually doing around 350 Wh/mile in the mountains with my S85. Long trips could push those numbers down below 300 Wh/mile. But that was in September when temperatures were a lot higher than right now.
Based on the window stickers, I'd expect the P85D to do better than a P85+ for long trips.
Not at all. We left the ski resort with 68 miles of EPA range left and the trip back to the supercharger was 73 miles, but I knew we'd be going downhill for a long time and recover many rated miles - which we did. I've also owned other EVs before so I'm used to this!Thanks for the information. Where you not nervous at all? I understand going back downhill would be better, but I would not have been comfortable going back with so little mileage?
Marc, For those of us who don't know the 110 mile trip, where you went through 144 rated miles of range. Were they a steady 75mph, plus the one acceleration? You later mention "twisties", were they in the 110? Elevation change? We'll know soon enough, but your's are perhaps the first numbers. So, thanks for indulging us.
This is interesting. From what I can see, the rated mile calculation is 350Wh/mile (85,000Wh/242miles = 350Wh/m). If I use this as a baseline, and then do the calculations off of your table, I get the following Wh calculations:
- SF to Roseville: 458Wh/m
- Roseville to SugarBowl: 719Wh/m
- SugarBowl to Roseville: 201Wh/m
- Roseville to SF: 439Wh/m
- Total: 453Wh/m
(To follow my math, take the ratio of rated miles to effective miles, and multiply that to the baseline of 350 Wh/m and you get the effective Wh/m)
But another thing that is quite interesting - look at just the Roseville to SugarBowl part of the trip. The combined power efficiency is 460Wh/m. Almost exactly what you got from SF to Roseville and only 5% worse than Roseville to SF. This basically means you paid a minimal tax for driving up/down the mountain. Almost every bit of power you put in, you got back on the way down. I'm a bit surprised by this. Makes me wonder if the dual motor configuration is significantly more efficient going downhill.
Anyway thanks for the detail
If you're going to do predictive math about the rated range rate constant, you need to use the energy available for the rated range which is not 85kWh. On my P85+ it's 74--this improves your number to 306Wh/RM.
In all the cars, a good majority of the penalty of mountain climbing is returned on the descent. Very unlikely to be affected by the dual motor configuration.
Both cars have 85kWh batteries. Rated range is just the Wh/m calculation to translate energy (kwh) into predicted miles.
Correct, but approximately 11kWh of the P85's energy is sequestered for protection and not included in the car's calculation of rated range. I've not heard any good data from P85D owners about the number of kWhs available from a range charge, but I imagine it is close to the P85+.
If I go from the south bay to SF via 101, my efficiency (Wh/m) is much better than if I travel via 280. The only difference is the hills. That's why I was surprised he didn't see a penalty there.
I would be surprised if your average speed was the same between 101 and 280. In my 15 years experience commuting in the Bay Area, through good times (tech bubbles) and bad times (dot-com crash, financial crisis, etc) I've found that the average traffic speed is always higher on 280. So unless you're very diligent at setting cruise control to the same speed on both highways and never hit traffic (unlikely these days), part of your higher consumption on 280 is likely due to the higher average speed.
I would be surprised if your average speed was the same between 101 and 280. In my 15 years experience commuting in the Bay Area, through good times (tech bubbles) and bad times (dot-com crash, financial crisis, etc) I've found that the average traffic speed is always higher on 280. So unless you're very diligent at setting cruise control to the same speed on both highways and never hit traffic (unlikely these days), part of your higher consumption on 280 is likely due to the higher average speed.
@tcampos, I believe it has been firmly established that all EVs "reserve" or protect a significant fraction of the total battery power to prevent the driver from running the battery down to zero and thereby "bricking" it (rendering it unusable and ruining it beyond repair). The "hidden" part of the battery is also used by the Tesla BMS in various ways.
Really? I didn't know that. What is it protecting? Is it simply for power reserve for hard acceleration?
Do you have a link or a suggestion to get more information on this?
There's a nice graphic that breaks down the several "compartments" energy is devoted to--can't put my hands on it presently. There's anti-bricking. There's some range beyond zero, though that has been variable and debated--some people have driven almost 20 miles beyond zero while others have come to a stop very near zero. Hard acceleration is limited when the battery is at a lower state of charge--separate issue. 74kWh is what my car shows when I drive from a full range charge down to zero, or near there and extrapolate. For a P85+, it works out to 275Wh/rated mile, so the new P85D is 30Wh more per rated mile. Whether this is empiric or based on the EPA data has yet to be determined.
I think this is the chart you're referring to:
View attachment 66802
I'm not sure what "zero-mile" protection means but it looks like at least 75.9 of the 85 kWh are available if charged to 100%.
If the "zero-mile" portion is also made available for emergencies, that's a full 81.1 kWh. Not bad.
This is fascinating. Where did you get this?