-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Another observation: The estimated cost to charge is no longer being displayed on the trip summary.
Thanks, that was a bug - now fixed!
Peter_M
Member
I think this is a bug: On a long trip with 10 supercharger stops, the plan has me arriving at the last supercharger before the destination with the "goal arrival charge" rather than the "charger arrival charge".
Edit: Actually, it seems to have something to do with the Florence SC supercharger. Try Ottawa Ontario to Orlando Florida. All the SC arrivals are at 10% except Florence, which is 15%.
Edit: Actually, it seems to have something to do with the Florence SC supercharger. Try Ottawa Ontario to Orlando Florida. All the SC arrivals are at 10% except Florence, which is 15%.
Last edited:
The difference between arriving at 10% and 15% at a charger with a modern Tesla battery is pretty small in terms of charging time (in an early S85, for example, it was always clearly better to arrive at as low SoC as possible). For some routes, ABRP may propose to arrive 15% instead of 10% even if you set it to arrive at minimum 10% just due to small rounding errors in the optimization.
That said, if you or anyone finds routes which are seem wrong, don't hesitate to report them. It helps a lot if you include a Share -> ABRP link in the report so that we can reproduce it exactly!
ABRP Forums!
We realize that reading a 39 page thread here at TMC or other forums about ABRP is a daunting and not very rewarding task, so we have finally set up forums of our own to discuss ABRP specifics. Feel free to join us at A Better Route Planner !
Also the blogs have moved there meaning that discussion around blog posts happen with your forum login.
We realize that reading a 39 page thread here at TMC or other forums about ABRP is a daunting and not very rewarding task, so we have finally set up forums of our own to discuss ABRP specifics. Feel free to join us at A Better Route Planner !
Also the blogs have moved there meaning that discussion around blog posts happen with your forum login.
Dr. J
Active Member
Plano? Tesla says it's 120kW:
Edit: Same with
Dallas, TX - North Central Expressway Supercharger
@Dr. J, I'd say Tesla is incorrect. I charged at Plano back in May and it is definitely an Urban charger (or was at the time) and thus no higher than 72 kW. Charging details courtesy of Teslafi.com
Dr. J
Active Member
@Darren S and @LCR1, I stand corrected. I've only charged in Plano once (and never in Dallas) on Oct. 18 and was billed for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 power (only 60 kW dividing line), but I was getting coffee and didn't observe the charge. That raises the question: how can you tell the difference between urban chargers and superchargers? Especially if the Tesla website is wrong.
@Dr. J, thanks for the update. You could also use PlugShare and look at the photos to easily tell if it is an Urban charger. You could also use supercharge.info which currently lists Plano as 72 kW although I was under the impression that this data was obtained from Tesla so I'm not sure. I see that A Better Route Planner has Plano listed at 120 kW. Photos would probably be the best way to identify each style but pick whichever version works best for you.
I have a first gen 90 kWh battery pack and have been throttled to ~95 kW max since 2 or 3 months after owning it (~June 2016) so I don't mind the consistent 72 kW from an Urban charger and it isn't that much slower than a conventional supercharger and is much more steady / reliable on charging speed for me.
Dr. J
Active Member
I didn't even notice the difference between Plano's urban chargers and Arlington's superchargers, LOL. But I'd only owned my Model 3 less than a month, and I was distracted by showing my brother my fabulous new car.
@BlueShift gets his info from the public and this forum for updating supercharge.info. The laredo Charger was built and online before it ever showed up on his map because no one actually caught it and made a thread to tag him in. Take a look at a lot of the other locations and you'll see they have limited or incorrect info. For instance Corsicana is listed as 6 stalls when it has 10 or 12 since the expansion and no KW mention, Denton doesn't have a kW mention either.
My car being an older 70D maxes out around 115kw and I rarely ever even see that, it's mostly at 90ish and quickly falls from there. I've been looking at getting a 90D, do you have a thread handy that explains the difference in the 90 batteries and when they each came out?
Last edited:
Well Blueshift is correct on this one (kudos to him) but I don't know how / when / what source he used to get the accurate info. Here is the official Tesla data (https://www.tesla.com/all-locations) as well as the supercharge.info data (https://supercharge.info/service/supercharge/allSites). Each set of data is generating the info on their respective site per the sample data in the comparison below.
I just don't know how or why Tesla would have the incorrect info when they installed it and monitor it constantly. Maybe it is wired for a future upgrade to a full 120 kW supercharger site but at the moment only has 72 kW Urban chargers. Hopefully not too many folks will expect to get 118 kW only to arrive and get just 70 kW. I wonder if there is a way to inform Tesla to update the info on their "Find Us" map and in-vehicle Nav screen so it is accurate to the location.
Not to hijack this thread, but this is probably the best thread for you, @LCR1, about the 90D battery pack degradation, 90 battery pack degradation.
I can't remember if I saw it in that thread or elsewhere with a rough timeframe when v2 or v3 of the 90D battery pack was produced. I thought the post-refresh 90D batteries were v2 at a minimum (and zero or minimal degradation). Are you interested in a 2-3/4 yr old S 90D with 125,000 miles?
PM me if you want some more info about my 90D degradation or post in that thread above and someone might remember where the reference is for when the different versions were produced.[/user]
Adrian
Title(D)
Does ABRP simulate max charge rates for manual charging input? Say, you set 120 kW charging rate at a location, will it then simulate a supercharger session? This could be useful to plan routes where superchargers are under construction.
Yes. Just use the settings icon to the right of a waypoint to set charge rate, percentage and/or time.
A month or two back, we switched from supercharge.info to tesla.com for supercharger info since supercharge.info was missing a few new pieces of information (probably due to the Google maps pricing issues). However, it has always been the case that supercharge.info contains community-corrected data and things which Tesla do not provide, so we would prefer using supercharge.info instead.
What is the current status of @BlueShift 's project - is it kept up-to-date?
Edit: Anyhow, I added a power override in the ABRP database, so the power for Plano and North Central will now be corrected to 72 kW. Let me know if you find more errors!
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Question
