Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

P85D vs. P85 Efficiency Testing, Take 2

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Speed is one of the things that I've been recording. Most of the trips my wife is the driver, and she has been setting TACC, when available, to 68. When it has not been available she almost certainly never goes above 70, and is probably closer to 65 most of the time, when on the highway. And about half the typical trip is not highway, but 50 or 55 MPH max speed, so I assure you we are not anywhere close to 70 or 75 MPH there. We also don't use TACC when not on the highway, because of how inefficient it is.

The main trip--between home and work--is 52 miles and change, and the driving time in EV Trip Planner with a factor of 1, which is what we use most of the time (occasionally we use something slightly different, depending on what happened that trip) is exactly 60 minutes.

The last trip I recorded I was the driver, and I actually set the TACC to 65, to try to see if speed might have been playing a factor, as someone here had indicated that they thought torque sleep wasn't kicking in at all at 70 MPH, and I normally would have set TACC at 70. It made no difference.

So driving speed does not explain why we're not seeing torque sleep efficiencies.

Hey Andy,
It seems you are doing everything right so it comes down to whether:
- Torque sleep is just not working
- Torque sleep is working but other consumption factors are hiding or minimizing the benefit you see relative to your pre .139 numbers (and relative to EV trip planner)

Besides your own numbers and analysis, the numbers Tesla provided also indicate virtually no improvement so I understand your concern.
As there are so many variables involved it makes it hard to prove to Tesla (particularly if you're working through various "middlemen"). One thing I wondered was whether you had tried to duplicate Lolachampcar's description of when and how the car switches into torque sleep. Others's have described how the energy usage changes when the rear motor drops out. If you were to do a flat run, warm battery, range on, heat off (temporarily) and have your wife do the necessary steps while you are videoing the dash along with before and after consumption figures. My understanding is that the change in energy usage should be very noticeable and comparable to the behavior described by others on the forum. Obviously if it seems to be working from this point of view, you are still left with questions; however, if it doesn't behave as expected you have some more ammunition to push Tesla service.
 
Hey Andy,
It seems you are doing everything right so it comes down to whether:
- Torque sleep is just not working
- Torque sleep is working but other consumption factors are hiding or minimizing the benefit you see relative to your pre .139 numbers (and relative to EV trip planner)

Besides your own numbers and analysis, the numbers Tesla provided also indicate virtually no improvement so I understand your concern.

Exactly!


As there are so many variables involved it makes it hard to prove to Tesla (particularly if you're working through various "middlemen"). One thing I wondered was whether you had tried to duplicate Lolachampcar's description of when and how the car switches into torque sleep. Others's have described how the energy usage changes when the rear motor drops out. If you were to do a flat run, warm battery, range on, heat off (temporarily) and have your wife do the necessary steps while you are videoing the dash along with before and after consumption figures. My understanding is that the change in energy usage should be very noticeable and comparable to the behavior described by others on the forum. Obviously if it seems to be working from this point of view, you are still left with questions; however, if it doesn't behave as expected you have some more ammunition to push Tesla service.

That's a good idea, and if it comes to that, I guess I'll have to try that. I'm hoping I won't need to, though. At this point I don't think I've really had the attention of anyone at Tesla who would really understand the issue and be able to give me an answer yet. I think the engineer who my initial inquiry was passed on to just checked the logs, saw that torque sleep was enabled, and responded with the figures, and then the rep just passed that information along. I doubt the engineer understood that I had already been logging trips and already feared there was an issue with torque sleep not functioning properly, etc. I think I'll have a much better feel for how Tesla is going to react when I hear back next time. That should give me a pretty good idea of how much "proof" I'm going to have to provide that something other than what is expected is going on.

If I am going to try to video torque sleep either happening or not happening, I'm not sure exactly how I'd go about that. For example, would I just get on the highway, set the TACC for, say 60 or 65, video the dash as we get up to speed, and then continue videoing the dash as I hopefully see a drop in energy consumption when the back motor drops out? My concern would be that if I see no drop in consumption, how do I know whether I'm seeing torque sleep not happening, as opposed to having seen torque sleep having kicked in very quickly just as the cruising speed was reached? Does that make sense?

Similarly, I might hear the back motor drop out, but not hearing it doesn't prove torque sleep isn't happening.

I guess what I'm saying is I think this test could prove that torque sleep is working, but I don't see how it could prove that it isn't, at least the way I envision doing the test. Perhaps there's a better way to do it that would allow for it to show if torque sleep isn't working, and I'm just not seeing it, or not understanding what you mean. If so, please explain it to me, as I very well may need to do this.

Thanks!

Also, even if I find out this way that torque sleep is working at times, that wouldn't be a complete answer, because I'd still wonder if it were working as frequently as it should be.

Does that make sense?
 
The torque sleep stuff definitely feels like it has little effect at 75+. I often set my cruise at 78 MPH on local 70 MPH highways... and I see only very minor improvement, if any, at this speed, in the P85D vs my old P85. It may be HVAC cancelling this out lately, though, since it's been unusually frigid here.

I may have to do a night time (no traffic) side by side at 78 MPH to see if I'm crazy or not.
 
Driving speed does not explain why we're not seeing torque sleep efficiencies.

Edit: By the way, this should be incredibly obvious, but tezzla--you know you can't compare your wh/mi numbers with mine, right?

Absolutely, mine are in sunny SoCal. I was just giving numbers supporting my driving style. My comment about your speed was more in jest.
 
I'll be recording another trip with me as the driver again today (the reverse of the last trip), and will again set the TACC to 65. I'll post all my data to date this evening.

As promised, below is the data I've been recording. Some of it I have posted before.

The most recent two trips the efficiency was a little better than EV Trip Planner predicted instead of a little worse. This could be due to one or a combination of a number of factors. For starters, I chose to set the TACC to 65 when on the highway, to purposely limit the speed. I tried to account for this in EV Trip Planner. Another factor is that I was the driver these two trips instead of my wife. All the other trips except the first one, she was the driver. Finally both of these two trips it was extremely cold, and I had preheated the cabin quite a bit, and then turned the cabin heat down to 64. While I did put the correct temperatures into EV Trip Planner, it's possible that at those extremes EV Trip Planner is less accurate, or perhaps my heat soaking is gaining me a lot of efficiency not being accounted for in EV Trip Planner. Either way, that would not be indicative of improved efficiency due to torque sleep suddenly working.

I have highlighted my efficiency numbers in red when they have beaten the EV Trip Planner expected numbers, and bolded the ones that beat the EV Trip Planner numbers by a significant amount. Note that even those few numbers, which I believe are anomalies, are not beating EV Trip Planner by nearly as much as the numbers from the people who believe they have seen the real efficiency gains from torque sleep are beating EV Trip Planner by.













EV Trip Planner





DateDistanceRMTotal EnergyAvg EnergyHwy SpeedCabin TempOutdoor TempWindElev ChangeConditionsEstimates: PayloadDistanceRMTotal EnergyAvg EnergySpd Factor
2/4/1558.47822.738965-70653211 HW630Cloudy40057.26920.83641
2/5/15546920.838565-7068146 HW(754)Little light snow17552.66318.93601
2/5/1553.57822.642355-706886TW754Clear17552.27221.54120.9
2/6/15546619.436065-706856TW(754)Clear17552.667203801
2/6/1553.47321.339965-7068206HW754Clear17552.27020.94011
2/12/15546318.734765-7068272CW(754)Some Sleet17552.65817.53321
2/12/1553.47622.241665-7068115TW754Flurries17552.273224211
2/13/15596820.534860-656432TW(630)Clear40057.77321.93790.96
2/16/1558.57822.939160-656450630Clear, Rd Snow40057.37823.54100.92
 
Last edited:
The torque sleep stuff definitely feels like it has little effect at 75+. I often set my cruise at 78 MPH on local 70 MPH highways... and I see only very minor improvement, if any, at this speed, in the P85D vs my old P85. It may be HVAC cancelling this out lately, though, since it's been unusually frigid here.

I may have to do a night time (no traffic) side by side at 78 MPH to see if I'm crazy or not.
Regardless of speeds of 75 or greater, shouldn't torque sleep still activate/be active and create some efficiencies by utilizing only the front motor?
 
I always drive 75-80 and have seen great efficiency gains over my P85+.
Thanks, Denarius. That makes sense to me and is what I was hoping to hear. It's been frigid here in Michigan most of this year already, and the few long trips I have taken have all been while it's been exceptionally cold - temps in the single digits to below zero. Despite that, it seems I have had significant efficiency gains on .139, although I haven't been able to test it at regular speeds above 70 due to road conditions.
 
Thanks, Denarius. That makes sense to me and is what I was hoping to hear. It's been frigid here in Michigan most of this year already, and the few long trips I have taken have all been while it's been exceptionally cold - temps in the single digits to below zero. Despite that, it seems I have had significant efficiency gains on .139, although I haven't been able to test it at regular speeds above 70 due to road conditions.

Could you please enter a couple of your trips into EV Trip Planner, and then post the results, as I have? (Please see my post upthread.)

I've been hoping that the reason my results haven't been good was that either the cold or the fact that I was still on .139 were preventing torque sleep from working properly. But if you are seeing great efficiency improvement in the cold, on .139, I am now even more concerned.

Thanks.
 
Could you please enter a couple of your trips into EV Trip Planner, and then post the results, as I have? (Please see my post upthread.)

I've been hoping that the reason my results haven't been good was that either the cold or the fact that I was still on .139 were preventing torque sleep from working properly. But if you are seeing great efficiency improvement in the cold, on .139, I am now even more concerned.

Thanks.

I already have here: Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner
 
Could you please enter a couple of your trips into EV Trip Planner, and then post the results, as I have? (Please see my post upthread.)

I've been hoping that the reason my results haven't been good was that either the cold or the fact that I was still on .139 were preventing torque sleep from working properly. But if you are seeing great efficiency improvement in the cold, on .139, I am now even more concerned.

Thanks.
Hey Andyw2100 - my apologies for the late follow-up on this, but it's been a crazy week, and I had to go back and reconstruct this information from various sources. My observations about seeing more efficiency has been almost as much anecdotal as anything else. On software version .115 and prior, average energy use never even got close to 400, except on the second trip recorded below, and I am fairly confident I had a strong tailwind on that drive. Typically, I was seeing mid-400's.

After moving to .139, I have been seeing numbers in the upper 300's much more regularly. Unfortunately, my historical numbers don't have important data points like wind speed and direction, which obviously makes comparisons here difficult at best.

Actual EfficiencyEVTripPlanner
DateSoftwareDistanceRMTotal EnergyAvg EnergyAvg Hwy SpeedCabin TempOutdoor TempWindElev Change (Feet)ConditionsEstimates: Payload (Pounds)DistanceRMTotal EnergyAvg EnergySpd Factor
12/30/146.0.x100.0
46.0460716818
-56Clear27599.714041.94201.00
01/02/156.0.x156.3
60.8389716628
-10Clear275154.120361.03961.05
01/02/156.0.x86.6
33.7389676640
10Clear27585.510832.43791.05
02/06/15.13968.4
25.8378706628
-148Lightly snowing, roads clear27568.49628.94221.05
02/13/15.139149.3
54.0361506722
-49Heavy snow, roads covered275146.016348.83340.72
 
Last edited:
Hey Andyw2100 - my apologies for the late follow-up on this, but it's been a crazy week, and I had to go back and reconstruct this information from various sources. My observations about seeing more efficiency has been almost as much anecdotal as anything else. On software version .115 and prior, average energy use never even got close to 400, except on the second trip recorded below, and I am fairly confident I had a strong tailwind on that drive. Typically, I was seeing mid-400's.

After moving to .139, I have been seeing numbers in the upper 300's much more regularly. Unfortunately, my historical numbers don't have important data points like wind speed and direction, which obviously makes comparisons here difficult at best.

I appreciate the response!

So it looks like from the data above, there is really only one trip on .139 that wasn't in heavy snow--the trip on 02/06. And on that trip you beat EV Trip Planner expectations by a significant margin: 378 vs. 422 on wh/mi, or 44/422 = 10.4% on that metric and 25.8 vs. 28.9 or 3.1/28.9=10.7% on that metric. (It looks like you just didn't have range miles, right?) So this is more fuel for my fire that something may be wrong with my torque sleep, as I can't come close to beating EV Trip Planner by anything approaching that.

Thanks!
 
I appreciate the response!

So it looks like from the data above, there is really only one trip on .139 that wasn't in heavy snow--the trip on 02/06. And on that trip you beat EV Trip Planner expectations by a significant margin: 378 vs. 422 on wh/mi, or 44/422 = 10.4% on that metric and 25.8 vs. 28.9 or 3.1/28.9=10.7% on that metric. (It looks like you just didn't have range miles, right?) So this is more fuel for my fire that something may be wrong with my torque sleep, as I can't come close to beating EV Trip Planner by anything approaching that.

Thanks!
No problem - glad to be able to help. I may be making a short 30-40 mile trip tomorrow, and I think the roads should be clear. If so, I will see if I can collect some more data for you and post it here. At the risk of sounding stupid, I am not sure I understand how you are getting range miles for your tracking. Are you simply looking at the rated miles you have in charge before and after the trip?
 
No problem - glad to be able to help. I may be making a short 30-40 mile trip tomorrow, and I think the roads should be clear. If so, I will see if I can collect some more data for you and post it here. At the risk of sounding stupid, I am not sure I understand how you are getting range miles for your tracking. Are you simply looking at the rated miles you have in charge before and after the trip?

Thanks.

And yes, that's all I'm doing. It has been slightly complicated by the addition of having to turn range mode on and off, so the convention I've been using is to track the rated miles with range mode on.

So, for example, I'll get in the car with range mode off, and a 90% charge showing 227. When I turn range mode on, that'll go up to 229. I have to remember to use 229 as my starting rated miles remaining, and not 227. When I end my trip, I have to check the rated miles remaining while still in range mode. As soon as I turn range mode off, which I do before exiting so that I can preheat the battery on shore power, the remaining rated miles will decrease a little.
 
Would it make sense to also report the following:

1) Wheel size.
2) Carbon fiber spoiler or not.
3) Ride height (for those that have air).
4) Wheel alignment, if you had it done.

Note, the ride height will change the camber which could also effect range in addition to the decrease in drag from lowering the car.