-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
P85D efficiency up after 6.1
- Thread starter 403portside
- Start date
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
Don't know about increased efficiency - my wife has managed a decent 360-ish Wh/mile over the past week pre- and post-6.1 all in Sport mode (TEG's going to break that streak with some Insanity today btw 
) - but, I may have noticed the same as another poster that the front motor is more audible, particularly at slow speeds, than before 6.1. Not scientific and not sure if anything has changed at all with the update on this front.
) - but, I may have noticed the same as another poster that the front motor is more audible, particularly at slow speeds, than before 6.1. Not scientific and not sure if anything has changed at all with the update on this front.Ouch! For those of us who still need to get our rear Next Gen seats installed, I hope this isn't true.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Hands up everyone who really thinks Tesla included torque vectoring/sleep in v6.1 and didn't include it in the release notes or any messages or marketing. I'm not saying I know for definite that there's been no change but I've also lost count of the number of placebo "changes" we've seen with FW updates over the last couple of years.
Tesla's communication sucks at times but I've never seen them miss including new features in release notes. I strongly suspect there's still an update to come for the Ds.
You're probably right. I remember after 6.0 came up many people swore the regen was different. 3 possibilities:
1) no actual change to dual motor drive system; pure placebo (tires getting past 1000 miles, warmer weather, selective memory)
2) torque sleep fully introduced but not mentioned in release notes; unlikely given Tesla release notes highlight most changes (at the minimum they would have said something like dual motor efficiency or performance improvements)
3) something in between; minor dual motor programming changes that improve efficiency but only a little bit and not with full torque sleep
Adm
Active Member
Bet TSLA
Active Member
or 4) Numbers reported have nothing to do with reality but are more pleasing to customers.
Seriously folks, these numbers are just numbers until they're tested and shown to have some connection to actual energy stored and miles driven. At this point it's pretty clear that the numbers need to be consistent with the new energy percentages that come out of Navigation, so perhaps they've tweaked them to be so. But it's not as though these numbers are directly tied to anything necessarily -- it's software not hardware.
One possibility I find intriguing (and consistent with Vitaman's "report energy usage more accurately") is that the numbers now take into account additional measured quantities. For instance, perhaps they are including actual tire pressure measurements and using them to adjust predicted range. Or ambient temperature. These have known significant effects and are probably not figured in (but could be).
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I'm not necessarily suggesting Tesla fully and completely implemented the torque sleep in 6.1. But I do think they have done something that is causing some of us to see increased efficienecy.
Personally, my thoughts would be definitely not to number 1 above, and almost definitely not to number 2 above. Probably some combination of 3 and 4 or something along those lines.
Tesla said the entire P85D fleet would have Torque Sleep by the end of January. They were putting out a software update in early January, as we saw. What better opportunity, assuming many aspects of the Torque sleep software were ready, to test the software and try to tweak it for optimum performance than to get slightly different versions out into a few thousand cars, collect data, and then fine-tune the software before the final release before the end of January?
wk057 noted that it seemed his car was doing a lot of communicating back and forth with Tesla during the update. Perhaps there was more data collection than usual because Tesla is going to really be comparing before and after efficiency numbers on a car by car basis, for different versions of the software. Yes, I'm taking this down to a level of detail that is beyond reasonable, so that's just a completely wild guess. But I think that the idea that Tesla would try to tweak the torque sleep settings by testing the software in real world conditions for a couple of weeks, to try to get the software as efficient as possible before release is reasonable. And if that's what they were doing, it would certainly explain why there was nothing in the release notes about it, and why some of us are seeing increases in efficiency. If some of us were left as "controls", and didn't get any torque sleep software, that would explain why some people are seeing no improvement in efficiency at all, while others seem to be.
Edit: Re-reading my own post, as added support for my theory that Tesla is testing and tweaking some aspects of torque sleep software in some P85Ds now...I'm pretty sure, from reading here, most P85Ds received the update that first night, or at least have it by now. Certainly the rate at which the update was pushed was faster than normal. That would support my theory that Tesla wants to collect data from the update, so needed to get it out to the P85D fleet quickly.
Last edited:
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I'm really confused. My ranges, and I believe others' here have been around 225 at 90%, so that would be 200 at 80%. How were you at 217 at 80% before the update?
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
It is a P85D
I edited my post (above) when I realized my brain-fart and that you made reference to the front-engine. I was editing as you were posting. (I was trying to cover my brain-fart.) My unedited post that he replied to above had suggested / asked if it wasn't a P85D, and assumed that because of the range figures now in my post.
Sorry, I guess that marker is 90% then? Whatever that marker is, it's at 226. Not sure why I thought it was 80%.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
OK, this makes a lot more sense.
When we first got these cars, that number was around 217-219, I believe. There was an update that perhaps you never received (or don't remember the interim range numbers for) that took it to 225. Over time, that 225 (or 219) can easily slip a little. Mine currently varies between 225 and 223 on a full charge. So your 226 is probably the same as everyone's 225. (Others may have 226 too.)
Got it. Yes I was a bit confused when I picked up my car as to why my range was only 216-217 as I was expecting it to be updated already. 226 is getting close to the 236 my P85+ used to display.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Well, I was even more confused for a second there. I missed your front engine, and basically had you back in your P85+!
MarcG
Active Member
