-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla also apparently gets around it by using range mode. And, the spec that the EPA governing "manufacturing recommendations" is validating by reviewing literature and general guidance around use of the car - which Tesla states 90% as the default charge for any given charge except for when planning a trip. And, using your logic of measuring what most drivers are doing, they are following this practice - charging to 90% unless they are planning a trip. They use the manufacturer's recommendations via manuals and literature because some EV cars don't have the luxury of setting the charge volume so its an attempt to even the playing field. And, to your point about ICE vehicles not being able to set the most favorable conditions to achieve MPG - it appears to be an attempt to follow that same practice. Again, all that said, if Tesla can alter this with another recommendation and the EPA allows it, all the power to them. That seems what happened to me.
Really its semantics in the end. And, getting back to the relevance of this post, we are all eagerly looking for range efficiency. In that, I believe that we are better off knowing how they did it than trying to achieve unachieveable results because we arent using the same options are the EPA selected. I think knowing how the tests are done helps us all with a sanity check. Maximizing the D range against the published spec...I believe that this was the point of the thread.
- - - Updated - - -
here is a copy of the message that refers to range mode on during testing - just to put this to bed:
Please see below
Jerome Guillen I VP, WW sales and service I [email protected] I 45500 Fremont boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 I tel650.681.5390 I mobile 503.970.5217 or 650.946.7730
www.teslamotors.com
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:25 PM,
Jerome,
Thank you so much for the clear response. It is most appreciated. As a result I have 3 more questions.
1. Why is this information not included in the release notes? -> Oversight. Will be fixed shortly. Please note that we will continue to make improvements to the system. We always try to squeeze more efficiency
2. Given the disclaimers around range already noted (constant speed and 19" wheels) does not include a requirement to operate in range mode, can we assume that the EPA ratings should be achievable without using this function? -> EPA testing is with range mode “on”, given that it is assumed customers will use that function when they want to drive the farthest
3. Was Torque Sleep provided in the .139 release? -> Yes. Please note that torque sleep is even more efficient at conserving energy when range mode is set to “on”
thank you again for your very prompt response.
Respectfully,
Matt
Last edited:
I agree with @breser that EPA testing of EVs should be done at 100% SOC because it makes it easier for consumers to compare EVs. Range is the primary question people have about EVs and the current EPA test results are not as helpful as they could be.
The question of whether or not features like Tesla's Range Mode should be enabled for EPA testing or not is a more difficult one, but in general I would say that if the feature is on by default then the EPA should test the car that way, if not on by default then don't. Most people don't change the cars default settings, though certainly some do.
The question of whether or not features like Tesla's Range Mode should be enabled for EPA testing or not is a more difficult one, but in general I would say that if the feature is on by default then the EPA should test the car that way, if not on by default then don't. Most people don't change the cars default settings, though certainly some do.
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
I drove two segments across Colorado yesterday in my P85D that I do now think would have been possible before .139/.140
Here is a summary of results for the first segment:
From Pagosa to Silverthorne, I went up a net of about 1,000 ft in elevation. Because the start is a loss of about 500 ft of elevation in the first mile, and the car cannot accept much of that energy due to lack of regen, the equivalent climb is probably more like 1,250 ft. The route crossed the continental divide 2 times, Wolf Creek Pass and Fremont Pass, and a minor pass, Poncha Pass between the Rio Grande and Arkansas River drainages. Temperatures ranged from 55˚F. to 26˚F. Winds were generally light from a 10 mph tailwind to a 15 mph headwind with most of the drive calm to a headwind. The average was probably a gentle (5mph?) headwind. The car was preheated with "range" mode off, Settings were "sport" acceleration, "standard" regen, and "range" mode on.
I started driving very conservatively with climate control off, and speed as PSL+4 or 61 mph, whichever was lower, never driving over 61. I used cruise control whenever there was no traffic, but went to manual accelerator whenever there was traffic, and for all major speed changes to keep efficiency as high as reasonable. Salida is a good intermediate top up point on charge with a 70A J1772, but adds 5 miles to the route. Coming down Poncha Pass into Salida, the energy prediction graph showed I would make Silverthorne, and my own "Cottonwood Ratio", will-I-get-there, test both showed I would make Silverthorne even with the sun setting and temps cooling. At that point, I raised my max speed to 65 mph and drove on to Silverthorne. By the time I hit Leadville, I had confidence that it would be no problem to make Silverthorne, I removed the max limit and just drove PSL+4. Several sections of that road have a PSL of 65, so the cruise control went to 69 in those areas. Somewhere after Salida, as the sun was getting low and temps were dropping I turned on climate control set to 67˚F. The seat heater was used at a setting of 1 or 2 the whole trip.
With a starting energy was 253 rated miles, I drove 241.3 miles using 67.1 kWh for 278 Wh/mi, arriving with 28 rated miles.
Even though there are several stretches of 45 and 50 mph PSL on this route, with the equivalent of 1,250 ft of elevation gain, and crossing three passes, I drove this route before with similar driving style and had no hope doing this drive with .113 firmware. I was using what most would consider hypermile techniques (see graph below), but before .139, I don't think that there is any way I could have done 241 miles with 28 miles left in the battery!
Here is a summary of results for the first segment:
From Pagosa to Silverthorne, I went up a net of about 1,000 ft in elevation. Because the start is a loss of about 500 ft of elevation in the first mile, and the car cannot accept much of that energy due to lack of regen, the equivalent climb is probably more like 1,250 ft. The route crossed the continental divide 2 times, Wolf Creek Pass and Fremont Pass, and a minor pass, Poncha Pass between the Rio Grande and Arkansas River drainages. Temperatures ranged from 55˚F. to 26˚F. Winds were generally light from a 10 mph tailwind to a 15 mph headwind with most of the drive calm to a headwind. The average was probably a gentle (5mph?) headwind. The car was preheated with "range" mode off, Settings were "sport" acceleration, "standard" regen, and "range" mode on.
I started driving very conservatively with climate control off, and speed as PSL+4 or 61 mph, whichever was lower, never driving over 61. I used cruise control whenever there was no traffic, but went to manual accelerator whenever there was traffic, and for all major speed changes to keep efficiency as high as reasonable. Salida is a good intermediate top up point on charge with a 70A J1772, but adds 5 miles to the route. Coming down Poncha Pass into Salida, the energy prediction graph showed I would make Silverthorne, and my own "Cottonwood Ratio", will-I-get-there, test both showed I would make Silverthorne even with the sun setting and temps cooling. At that point, I raised my max speed to 65 mph and drove on to Silverthorne. By the time I hit Leadville, I had confidence that it would be no problem to make Silverthorne, I removed the max limit and just drove PSL+4. Several sections of that road have a PSL of 65, so the cruise control went to 69 in those areas. Somewhere after Salida, as the sun was getting low and temps were dropping I turned on climate control set to 67˚F. The seat heater was used at a setting of 1 or 2 the whole trip.
With a starting energy was 253 rated miles, I drove 241.3 miles using 67.1 kWh for 278 Wh/mi, arriving with 28 rated miles.
Even though there are several stretches of 45 and 50 mph PSL on this route, with the equivalent of 1,250 ft of elevation gain, and crossing three passes, I drove this route before with similar driving style and had no hope doing this drive with .113 firmware. I was using what most would consider hypermile techniques (see graph below), but before .139, I don't think that there is any way I could have done 241 miles with 28 miles left in the battery!
MarcG
Active Member
Now THAT's what I'm talking about!! (emphasis mine). It sounds like we can finally drive our P85Ds to the actual range that was advertised! Thank you Tesla (it couldn't have come too soon - maybe at delivery? ;-) )
I don't disagree that it should be 100% - its just the "why" we differ on.
It should be tested against 100% because they are applying the same logic in Jeromes message - its a logical setting for a driver seeking range. If on the other hand, we are to use the same logic being applied to the range thought process you noted, the default setting for a Model is battery charge is 90%, not 100%. Not only is 90% recommended everywhere you look for a baseline in their literature, if one charges to 100% more than a few days in a row, the car asks you if you're on a road trip and suggests a lower setting to protect battery life. If that isn't saying that 100% is to be avoided as a default setting, I don't know what is!!
Wow, you can really see Wolf Creek Pass in your energy trace. Wish I'd had .139/140 last weekend: I'd have spent a lot less time charging at Wood's in Salida on the way to and from Taos!
By the way, there's a Lab hair on your 17". :biggrin:
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
Yes the standard is broken and a manufacturer can pretty much do whatever they want. We agree on why it should be at 100% in principle. However, I think what Tesla is doing with respect to state of charge is not inconsistent with the current standard.
In my opinion I don't really care if manufacturers charge to 100% to maximize the range number. I do care if they use every setting to maximize efficiency. Like I said before you can easily adjust the range based on percentage of charge. If all the vehicles report range at 100% charge, then I can easily say that I'm not going to get 265 miles at 80% charge and will instead get 212 miles. Most people can understand that.
What most people can't understand is how to adjust the energy they will use for different driving modes. If Tesla executes the efficiency tests in range mode and I'm not likely to drive around in range mode all the time, what calculation should I apply to tell me how much more energy I'm going to use (and ultimately money I'm going to spend) to drive? I have no idea how much range mode improves efficiency.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I had to blow the Lab hair off my laptop screen to confirm that there was, in fact, a Lab hair on Cottonwood's 17"!
MarcG
Active Member
More data from my commute to work this morning - definitely seems to be consistently lower with the latest updates (yes I'm still in INSANE mode with RANGE MODE on):
| Date | Distance | Time | Avg Speed | RM Used | kWh Used | Wh/mi | Avg Temp | Cabin | Roads | Weather | SW Version |
| 1/26/15 | 9.0 mi | 7m18s | 73.97 mph | 12 | 3.4 | 370 | 10ºC/50ºF | Seat Heater (2) | Dry | Cloudy | 6.1 (2.2.113) |
| 1/27/15 | 10.1 mi | 8m34s | 70.74 mph | 12 | 3.3 | 327 | 17ºC/63ºF | None | Dry | Cloudy | 6.1 (2.2.113) |
| 1/28/15 | 9.6 mi | 7m51s | 73.38 mph | 13 | 3.6 | 378 | 17ºC/63ºF | None | Dry | Sunny | 6.1 (2.2.113) |
| 1/30/15 | 9.6 mi | 7m48s | 73.85 mph | 12 | 3.4 | 359 | 12ºC/54ºF | Seat Heater (1) | Dry | Cloudy | 6.1 (2.2.113) |
| 2/2/15 | 9.7 mi | 8m01s | 72.60 mph | 11 | 3.3 | 343 | 12ºC/54ºF | Seat Heater (1) | Dry | Sunny | 6.1 (2.2.113) |
| 2/4/15 | 9.7 mi | 8m14s | 70.69 mph | 9 | 3.0 | 314 | 14ºC/57ºF | None | Dry | Cloudy | 6.1 (2.2.139) |
| 2/5/15 | 10.0 mi | 8m19s | 72.14 mph | 10 | 3.1 | 308 | 14ºC/57ºF | None | Dry | Cloudy | 6.1 (2.2.140) |
| 2/6/15 | 9.8 mi | 8m24s | 70.00 mph | 10 | 3.0 | 302 | 15ºC/59ºF | None | Dry | Cloudy | 6.1 (2.2.140) |
over 20% reduction in consumption!! Yay for TM and thank you Marc for continuing to share this data!
Huh. Learn something new every day.
Is there a driver warning or alert come when it disables? Does the car show anything different on the instruments while you are in the non-adaptive cruise?
Are these Infinitis equipped with automatic emergency braking/panic stop?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Walter
Huh. Learn something new every day.
Is there a driver warning or alert come when it disables? Does the car show anything different on the instruments while you are in the non-adaptive cruise?
Are these Infinitis equipped with automatic emergency braking/panic stop?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Walter
I have an Infiniti JX35 with the adaptive cruise control and all and saftey features. The lane departure warning and lights are nice. There are two modes you can chose from. Warnings and prevention. The warnings will give you a short 3 tone beep at you when you start drifting past the lines. It's foward crash warning is actaully really good. Gives beeps again. Blind spot will show a orange light next to the side view mirrors when there is a car there. If you turn on your signal and there is a blind spot person there, It will beep at you as well.
For actual prevention which can be turned off.. It will stop the car if something enters your path while backing up. It will also look for cars coming at you from either side and stop you as well. Save me a few times. The car will brake and stop if you are advancing too close. It will keep a distance as well. If you start drifting lanes it will actually apply a light brake to the opposite side to bring you back to your lane with a warning. Its pretty cool but only used on long travels
The dash will tell you everything that is disabled or enabled.
For MarcG, at 302 wh/mile he can supposedly go 260 miles at 70 mph. Now that is really incredible if he can actually demonstrate if that is possible.
Now that also bring up the possibility that range could be even more, perhaps 275 miles? - when driven at 65 mph, but I didn't see a single run from Marc at any speeds lower than 70 mph
Now that also bring up the possibility that range could be even more, perhaps 275 miles? - when driven at 65 mph, but I didn't see a single run from Marc at any speeds lower than 70 mph
Interestingly enough Tesla has a range calculator. That calculator shows that at 70 mph one can go 261 miles and at 65 mph one can go 285 miles. So basically Marc is getting exactly what Tesla said he should get @70 so I would assume he can get the 285 miles @65mph that was originally advertised.
Your Questions Answered | Tesla Motors
MarcG
Active Member
My pleasure!
I do have some longer runs at lower than 70 mph but they were pre-2.2.139, so I'll post new data after my long ski trip this weekend.
Yep, and don't forget this chart and graph from JB's blog:
So at 70 mph I should be getting right around 260 miles. Looking forward to testing that!
Last edited:
MarcG
Active Member
Indeed. I chose not to get 21" wheels for 5 main reasons:
1. Range reduction
2. Rim damage (bad CA roads)
3. Tire wear
4. No all-weather 21" tires from Tesla (summer or winter only)
5. Cost
Similar threads
