-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Xenius
Active Member
@blincoln I see you can click on the charger in the map and tell it not to use it, however when I do that (using Chrome, current stable version) nothing happens. I see the following error in the console:
1) Plan route
2) Click the icon for the charger in the route (on the left hand side of page)
3) Now in the popup on the map, click "don't use this charger" (Error happens in console)
4) Click away from charger popup to get it to go away
5) Click charger directly
6) Click don't use this charger -> Works
7) Replan Route
(index):3832 Uncaught TypeError: marker.setIcon is not a function
at setExclude ((index):3832)
at HTMLTableRowElement.<anonymous> ((index):4090)
EDIT: It looks like this can be reproduced like so.at setExclude ((index):3832)
at HTMLTableRowElement.<anonymous> ((index):4090)
1) Plan route
2) Click the icon for the charger in the route (on the left hand side of page)
3) Now in the popup on the map, click "don't use this charger" (Error happens in console)
4) Click away from charger popup to get it to go away
5) Click charger directly
6) Click don't use this charger -> Works
7) Replan Route
Thanks for the detailed bug report - it made fixing the bug easy and fast. Try again!
Xenius
Active Member
Works great now,thanks!
As someone who has seen some *sugar* bug reports in his day, I try to never make them
As someone who has seen some *sugar* bug reports in his day, I try to never make them
It's an optimization algorithm; it makes a stop if that's the optimal solution. Two 20 minute charges from 10% to 50% are shorter than a single 60 minute charge from 10% to 90%. Charge rate is non linear.
comanchepilot
Member
Shorter in theory. But you have to slow down, get off the freeway, find the supercharger, plug in and wait for it to start, do your 50% charge and then unplug, move off, get back on the freeway etc. With stop lights and all the other associated BS of getting off the highway, its not going to take less time - would you agree?
Even if you don't you have my request for a feature - to allow you to specify distance or charge level before you pull off . . .
That's why there's the setting for "Time to open charge port". If you know it will take a while to get off the highway, you can adjust the value. If you put in larger values, it will find routes with fewer stops. if you put in a smaller value, then it will suggest stopping more often for faster recharges.
Fortunately, on the thousands of miles of road trips that I've done so far, all of the Superchargers that I've used were located very close to the highway and only took a minute or two to reach.
Thanks for the info @SomeJoe7777 . It's still interesting to see how adjusting the value by a minute or two can totally change which Superchargers are suggested.
Last edited:
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
The drive time off the highway to and from each supercharger is already taken into account because the routing along those side roads will be added in. The "Time to Open Charge port" reflects the delay between arriving at the supercharging destination and starting the charge.
These details with how often you stop, skipping superchargers, side road delays, and charge port delays are actually minimal in the grand scheme of things these days. As of now, the biggest thing that will delay you are the less-than-optimal charge rates that most superchargers are putting out.
I did a trip from Houston TX to Orlando FL and back in July, and a trip from Houston TX to Nashville TN and back in August. I stopped at a total of about 18 different superchargers, and in only 2 cases was I able to get a correct charge profile. All other supercharger stops delayed me between 5 and 20 minutes of the theoretical time that the charge should have taken. In some cases, some superchargers were putting out up to 50 kW less than they were supposed to be (70 kW charge rate when under 10% SOC -- should have been near 120 kW).
I pulled all of my logs from TeslaFi.com and sent them to Tesla for analysis, along with exact dates and times so that they could look in the car's logs. They called me back about 2 weeks later and confirmed that every one of my reduced charge rate experiences was due to overheating at the supercharger handle or cable, which caused the supercharger to throttle the charging rate. They confirmed that nothing was wrong with my car or battery.
@blincoln, I wonder if it's time to make an option to plan for less-than-optimal supercharger profiles. On both of those trips, I followed ABRP's route-planned suggestions, but each day of driving had me arriving over an hour later than ABRP's estimate due to reduced supercharger charge rates. Maybe a selector for Optimal -> Typical -> Marginal -> Poor to select 4 different charging curves to plan with. This could extend to Chademo charges as well, as only some Chademo chargers put out the full 50 kW. Others typically max out at 40 kW or sometimes less.
True. But one can still use that variable to provide additional 'penalty' for additional stops. Set it to 30 minutes and the optimization can be quite different for a long trip. For example Austin to San Francisco.
I would still not agree with you here. There is no “in theory”; it’s a basic math problem and can not be framed in a one size fits all answer like you are trying to submit. The algorithm takes all your variables you list above into account and optimizes based on minimum time. This is one of the reasons abetterrouteplanner.com was created in the first place.
ReturnZero
Member
How was that trip? I've been wanting to do a Disney World trip from DFW after getting my Model S but I wasn't sure what the trip was like. It's not so bad in my ICE car but obviously the Tesla is much different.
Well done of Tesla to actually check your logs and be able to determine from their own logs that a specific overheating point in the charger was the issue!
Ideally, bad SuC performance should be identified automatically by ABRP by measuring the charging performance, but ABRP does not have even close to enough users for that type of data analysis yet
(and no, no data like that is ever stored on the ABRP server - if that ever changes you will be notified).So, should we have a per-trip setting on poor SuC power or a per-charger? In practice, I assume it is quite often due to high temperatures, which should affect quite many chargers in an area.
Edit: Or should we crowd-source so that it set (by users) per charger and reported to ABRP so that the latest/best/median/average reported value is proposed to all other users (perhaps with an option to use ideal or user reported SuC power?)
Last edited:
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
The thing with user-reported data is the inaccuracies and errors. If you let users report their perceived supercharger performance, you'll see some users reporting poor performance when it wasn't the supercharger's problem -- e.g. they were paired for all or part of the charge and didn't know it, cold temperatures outside, cold-soaked battery, etc. Too many factors can cause reduced supercharger performance that don't have anything to do with the supercharger.
Per-charger settings are also problematic because you probably would have to gather data at the stall level rather than the site level. I had a few times where one stall would have poor performance and another would have at least better, if not optimal performance. It's highly dependent on the maintenance state of the supercharger cables and handles.
At this point, given that we don't have enough users for automatic monitoring by ABRP, probably a per-trip setting would be best. We're not going to get the charging time accurate to the minute or anything, but something that takes into account the real-world charge rates will improve the overall trip planning.
One thing that might really help the situation is if you monitor the actual charge rate and compare it to the predicted optimal rate, inform the user if the supercharger performance is well below the optimal performance, and display the Tesla roadside assistance telephone number, prompting the user to call and report the malfunctioning charger. Telsa won't fix these superchargers unless they're reported.
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
Other than the delays at superchargers, the trips went quite well. I did Houston to Orlando as a 2-day drive with an overnight stop in Defuniak Springs, FL. This is a bit more than halfway from Houston to Orlando. If you want something closer to the mid-point, try Mobile, AL.
Other tips:
1. AP is your friend. I drove 95% of the time with AP engaged, had very few issues. Disclaimer: My car is AP1. I have no long-distance driving experience with AP2.
2. Look for a destination charger for your overnight stay -- this helps because you don't have to wait at a supercharger either the night you get to the mid-point or the following morning.
3. If you don't have a destination charger, supercharge at night before you sleep, do not supercharge in the morning. Made this mistake one time and the battery was cold-soaked the next morning. Supercharge took forever.
4. Use Waze on your phone for traffic routing. There are surprisingly frequent construction areas these days on the major interstates, in some cases backing up traffic for miles. Waze will route you around it, the Tesla Nav frequently won't.
5. The supercharger in Orlando is on the Florida turnpike, which is good for the trip in and out of Orlando, but not good for use while you're there. I had a destination charger at my Orlando hotel, so I didn't investigate other charging options in the Orlando area.
Hey @blincoln, love the site. I tried to email you off of ABRP's info page but the email bounced back as undeliverable. So after I found this thread i signed up for an account here - I've been wanting to join anyway. You get the privilege of my first post.
I’m one of the thousands waiting for my first Tesla, a Model 3. I’ve used your site months ago to look up my favorite places and determine how the larger vs smaller battery would affect my travel – I’ve yet to decide what battery I will get. Delivery est May 2018.
I do have a question. It seems now that ABRP defaults to avoiding superchargers when I choose Model 3’s. Can I turn this off? I’d prefer to have a check box to say ‘avoid Supercharging if possible’ (or something similar) and just uncheck it.
Real world example here. There’s no way I’m going to travel from Cary, NC to Myrtle Beach, NC driving 43 miles an hour for 4 ½ hours… Not to mention I would probably get run over and that it would be a dangerous way to travel. Rather I’d prefer you give us a choice to supercharge even if there is a fee. That way us reservation holders can SEE what our vacations and trips will cost us. I know I can add it by clicking on the Lumberton Supercharger and say add as a waypoint. It adds Lumberton and I’m willing to pay the $0.96 to cut an hour off the travel time and have a safer drive ;-)
Adversely, some S or X drivers may like the option of AVOIDING a supercharge too. Maybe they’d prefer to drive a touch slower and avoid a single supercharge to not wake up a sleeping baby?
So I like the idea of giving us all an option to avoid or not but defaulting it for the Model 3 wouldn’t be my preference. However this is just my opinion. Thanks again for a great product. I’ll definitely donate!
I’m one of the thousands waiting for my first Tesla, a Model 3. I’ve used your site months ago to look up my favorite places and determine how the larger vs smaller battery would affect my travel – I’ve yet to decide what battery I will get. Delivery est May 2018.
I do have a question. It seems now that ABRP defaults to avoiding superchargers when I choose Model 3’s. Can I turn this off? I’d prefer to have a check box to say ‘avoid Supercharging if possible’ (or something similar) and just uncheck it.
Real world example here. There’s no way I’m going to travel from Cary, NC to Myrtle Beach, NC driving 43 miles an hour for 4 ½ hours… Not to mention I would probably get run over and that it would be a dangerous way to travel. Rather I’d prefer you give us a choice to supercharge even if there is a fee. That way us reservation holders can SEE what our vacations and trips will cost us. I know I can add it by clicking on the Lumberton Supercharger and say add as a waypoint. It adds Lumberton and I’m willing to pay the $0.96 to cut an hour off the travel time and have a safer drive ;-)
Adversely, some S or X drivers may like the option of AVOIDING a supercharge too. Maybe they’d prefer to drive a touch slower and avoid a single supercharge to not wake up a sleeping baby?
So I like the idea of giving us all an option to avoid or not but defaulting it for the Model 3 wouldn’t be my preference. However this is just my opinion. Thanks again for a great product. I’ll definitely donate!
ReturnZero
Member
I'd actually like to request a little more regarding the max speed functionality, and the addition of a min speed field. For example, I have my speed set to 85mph because that's the highest I would go, but if I need to go 75mph for a leg that's not a problem at all so I tell it to allow slower speeds if necessary. However if I need to go 50mph that's not going to work, so for that leg I would prefer to add a stop or do whatever is necessary to avoid that situation. Hopefully that makes sense.
Sorry that your email bounced - don't know why.
Anyhow, ABRP never tries to avoid supercharging. It solves the problem of getting from point A to point B in shortest possible time including charging, no matter the cost
In your examples, I think what you see is that when the "Slower if needed" checkbox is checked, then it will try to slow down if necessary to reach a certain waypoint or charger. If this turns out to give a faster total trip time than stopping for a charge, then, yes - this wins. However, I realize this may not be how you want to drive, so then just uncheck "Slower if needed" and you are set.
Edit: Hey, thanks to your post, I started looking at the details and found a bug which sometimes selected the slower non-charging route instead of the charging route which was faster. Now fixed!
Last edited:
I see what you mean, it makes sense if I can get the UI understandable. I'll see what I can do.
I was just coming here to post about this bug. I was finding that if I micromanaged the superchargers by forcing some to be used, I could get faster travel times than the original solution.
One other thing I noticed, I think your travel speeds come from Google's API? I've noticed that it is a bit low in many areas and this translates into much lower wh/mi consumption. For example, in west Texas on I10 where the speed limit is 85mph, ABRP indicates an average speed of 60mph. I realize this is probably just pass through info for ABRP and not necessarily a bug. Just something for users to look out for. Fortunately you had the foresight to program in a way to bias the speed so a user can put in 130% of rated speed or whatever to get closer to where they think they might drive.
Similar threads
- Question
