A Better Routeplanner

[Peter_M]

Thanks for looking into this. Here's the console log:

and here is my options code string:

MS02,RENC,TM00,DRLH,PF00,BT85,PBCW,QPMT,RFBC,WT1P,WTX1,FG01,UTMF,IDPB,IX00,TR00,SU01,SC01,PX00,TP01,PK01,CW01,AU00,CH01,HP01,PA00,LP00,SP00,PS01,AD02,YF00,X021,X025,X014,X028,X001,X003,X007,X037,X011,X027,X031,BS00,COCA

When I tried it again, the "Get pos failed..." message didn't happen but the Uncaught TypeError happens every time I click the VIN.

 

[blincoln]

Thanks for looking into this. Here's the console log:

View attachment 272756
and here is my options code string:

MS02,RENC,TM00,DRLH,PF00,BT85,PBCW,QPMT,RFBC,WT1P,WTX1,FG01,UTMF,IDPB,IX00,TR00,SU01,SC01,PX00,TP01,PK01,CW01,AU00,CH01,HP01,PA00,LP00,SP00,PS01,AD02,YF00,X021,X025,X014,X028,X001,X003,X007,X037,X011,X027,X031,BS00,COCA

When I tried it again, the "Get pos failed..." message didn't happen but the Uncaught TypeError happens every time I click the VIN.

Great! Should be solved now - thanks for the report.

 

[Peter_M]

Great! Should be solved now - thanks for the report.

Yup, works now. Thanks for the quick fix!

 

[Droschke]

Thanks for adding the weather parameters under "More Settings". It is great.

But now, the role of "Reference Consumption" field (Wh/mile at 65 mph) is ambiguous. It looks like after entering the "More Settings" information the app still forces the user to input the "Reference Consumption"! I thought the whole purpose behind inputting the extra settings was the user did not know what the wh/mile (or km) would be and the app would provide the Wh/mile consumption as an output.

Also, I believe the Reference Consumption field to be renamed to: Consumption xxx Wh/y, where y is mile or km. The "Wh/mile at 65 mph" (km) to be dropped. You already have a nice popup for the field description.

Just suggestions

 

[blincoln]

Thanks for adding the weather parameters under "More Settings". It is great.

But now, the role of "Reference Consumption" field (Wh/mile at 65 mph) is ambiguous. It looks like after entering the "More Settings" information the app still forces the user to input the "Reference Consumption"! I thought the whole purpose behind inputting the extra settings was the user did not know what the wh/mile (or km) would be and the app would provide the Wh/mile consumption as an output.

Also, I believe the Reference Consumption field to be renamed to: Consumption xxx Wh/y, where y is mile or km. The "Wh/mile at 65 mph" (km) to be dropped. You already have a nice popup for the field description.

Just suggestions

Thanks for the proposals! I agree the role of the reference consumption is a little less clear now with weather parameters, but my idea is to allow either way. Experienced Tesla drivers may prefer to use reference consumption to adjust for their driving and vehicle as well as weather, whereas less experienced may prefer the explicit weather parameters. Still, the weather parameters do not replace other things which affect consumption like the fancy 22" rims or roof racks.

(Techically the weather parameters do not affect consumption exactly the same way as reference consumption does. For example, wind impact is speed dependent, temperature is currently not.)

 

[vigge50]

Have you start to get more data from Model 3 owners?

 

[blincoln]

Disappointingly - no. I have 8 unique model 3s with MyTesla logins and share data enabled, but unfortunately, very few data points have been provided.

I have started to look for other sources of information regarding charge power and consumption, but so far I have not seen anything really useful. If you know about some data, please point it out!

 

[vigge50]

I do understand that it’s less likely that Model 3 owners share information as they don’t have any web browser in there car but maybe you should start a new thread in the Model 3 sub forum as not every Model 3 owner and reservation holder is looking through Model S sub forum.

 

[Buster1]

@blincoln I completed my 1st ever Tesla road trip. Wanted to say thank you for AbetterRoutePlanner as it was phenomenal, and it really helped me plan and ease my worries as I learned to trust the car over 550 miles. So thanks!

Question. On all of my trip legs, I outperformed ABRP every time. For instance, if it predicted I’d arrive with 30% remaining, I’d typically arrive with 35% remaining real world.

I believe I’ve set up the settings correctly to match my car, and included the winds and temps too. I set 108% Ref speed (speed limit is 70, I do 75-78), max speed 80, and of course departure charge was accurate with a 10% goal arrival charge.

I wonder if it has to do with reference consumption at 65 mph? I left that at 324 Wh/mi but my real world numbers from the trip were closer to 310-ish and that was driving at 75-78 mph mostly over hundreds of miles.

How can I optimize ABRP to be more accurate for me?

Thanks!

 

[MorrisonHiker]

I wonder if it has to do with reference consumption at 65 mph? I left that at 324 Wh/mi but my real world numbers from the trip were closer to 310-ish and that was driving at 75-78 mph mostly over hundreds of miles.

How can I optimize ABRP to be more accurate for me?

Thanks!

If you are averaging 310, can't you just set it to 310 before calculating? Voila!

 

[Dr. J]

If you are averaging 310, can't you just set it to 310 before calculating? Voila!

Or run after-the-fact ABRP scenarios with different reference consumption values to determine what gets you closest to your real world experience.

 

[Buster1]

@MorrisonHiker Well I don’t know. The wh/mi entry says “at 65 mph.” And 310 was a leg average at much faster than 65. I’m guessing my average at 65 mph is much lower obviously.

@Dr. J Thanks, that’s probably the best way to determine it.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

@MorrisonHiker Well I don’t know. The wh/mi entry says “at 65 mph.” And 310 was a leg average at much faster than 65. I’m guessing my average at 65 mph is much lower obviously.

@Dr. J Thanks, that’s probably the best way to determine it.

If it's obviously a much lower value then just use a lower value instead of the default. I typically use 300 for my trips in my car. YMMV.

 

[blincoln]

ABRP 2.13 - plan faster!

Just to let you know that I released a new version of the ABRP optimization algorithm which is a lot faster. If you find any issues with it, let me know. For the moment, the only known bug/feature is the lack of support alternative routes, but that is coming (and way better than before).

Together with some caching bug fixes, ABRP should now be a lot snappier. Calculating the Cannonball Run; New York City to Redondo Beach, CA, now takes around 15 seconds. Which, by the way, gives some fun numbers:

• Fastest Tesla at legal speed: Model S 100D: 51 hours 0 minutes (via New Mexico)
• Model 3 Long Range (still a bit shaky models): 51 hours 43 minutes: Not bad considering the price difference
• Model S75D: 54 hours 21 minutes
• Model X100D: 53 hours 27 minutes
• Model X75D: 58 hours 45 minutes (via Colorado)
• Slowest Tesla, X60D: 59 hours 18 minutes (via Wyoming)

 

[tyson]

@blincoln I have an older 85 that just got swapped to a 90. But in apps like visible Tesla the BT85 code is still present. How would a car like mine be handled in ABRP? Would I skew the results?

 

[blincoln]

@blincoln I have an older 85 that just got swapped to a 90. But in apps like visible Tesla the BT85 code is still present. How would a car like mine be handled in ABRP? Would I skew the results?

Nah, it seems like the option codes never change after delivery. My originally German MS is still German according to option codes in spite of being converted to Swedish by Tesla.

Anyhow, for your own planning purpose, just select MS90 and you will be fine. As for ABRP logging, yes, the results could be very very slightly skewed, but I can easily exclude logs where the option code does not match the user setting. So no worries.

 

[tyson]

Nah, it seems like the option codes never change after delivery. My originally German MS is still German according to option codes in spite of being converted to Swedish by Tesla.

Anyhow, for your own planning purpose, just select MS90 and you will be fine. As for ABRP logging, yes, the results could be very very slightly skewed, but I can easily exclude logs where the option code does not match the user setting. So no worries.

Sounds good, thanks! Look forward to using this on my next road trip!

 

[dwploc]

Curious issue possibly.

DIstance Corsicana to Canton 104 miles,
Canton to Corsicana 60 miles

What am I missing here?

 

[blincoln]

Curious issue possibly.

View attachment 277126

DIstance Corsicana to Canton 104 miles,
Canton to Corsicana 60 miles

What am I missing here?

You are not missing anything - thanks for the bug report! I introduced it in the new optimization algorithm - time was correct but distance was wrong. Now fixed.

 

[dwploc]

You are not missing anything - thanks for the bug report! I introduced it in the new optimization algorithm - time was correct but distance was wrong. Now fixed.

Thanks, can always count on ABRP as a quality product with never-ending development.