TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Badly needed changes to Navigation and Energy apps

Discussion in 'Model S: User Interface' started by jeffnorman, Jul 28, 2013.

  1. jeffnorman

    jeffnorman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Just finished my first road trip - which was a 268 mile nail biter between Chicago and Detroit. Theoretically, I should have been able to make the trip without charging at the rated 270 mile range. But, I wanted a margin of safety so I borrowed a privately owned wall powered charger halfway to Chicago on the way back, and charged for almost 90 minutes (single charger, so that added about 42 miles of charge). That should have been more than enough, but it wasn't because my actual range was much less. I drove carefully the whole way back knowing I would end up running close. I avoided brake usage, glided slowly to stops, accelerated slowly, and stayed at the posted speed limits using cruise control whenever possible. Yet, I ended up barely making the 268 mile trip even with the added benefit of topping off to add 42 miles of charge (at the misleading "rated" range). I ended up turning off the navigation system and using my phone, because Tesla's navigation was worse than useless.

    The problems I encountered were: (a) the navigation system makes it impossible to map out the shortest route, instead opting for high speed battery sucking freeways that took away many miles from my range before I realized it (on highways in cruise control when possible I got only about 360-375 wh/mile), (b) there is no way to overlay the remaining range with the route so I had to constantly calculate range in my head, (c) using the "rated" range was misleading, because my actual average range is about 360 (which seems pretty consistent with the rest of the world), (d) even when i realized I was in trouble range-wise, and slowed to 45-55 mph, I could not see the impact of that on range so I had no idea if I was going to make it (or not), and (e) I could not determine the impact of making a detour to charge more because there is no way to route using multiple destinations (or, better, charger to charger!).

    This was all made worse by the fact that, if I didn't make it, I would have been abandoned somewhere between Gary and the South Side of Chicago. Not a great place to have to pull over and call for help.

    This led to a very tense drive home. I ended up with zero miles at the end (turned from 1 mile left just as I pulled into the garage)!!

    I hope the good folks at Tesla will consider my very painful trip and make a few very simple modifications to the nav system in the next firmware release:

    (1) Add an option to route via the shortest mileage route (ideally, you could have "shortest mileage avoiding side streets and frequent stops" so as not to be routed into 25mph or high traffic zones; but any shortest route option would be a great add)

    (2) Add an option for multiple destinations to permiting routing via chargers along the way (ideally, an automated routing solution that calculated the best chargers to use/stop at given the desired route would be amazing)

    (3) Add an option to the Energy use app to use the "trip average" (trip a or trip b, should be user selectable) when showing range; and/or allow the user to input Wh/Mile for this purpose. An "ERC" (estimated range remaining) should be displayed at all times based on the real world trip datra or user input Wh/mile.

    (4) Show range on the navigation system, with a warning zone (orange) and out of range zone (red) to indicate where the remaining ACTUAL range (at the above Wh/mile, not the misleading rated range) will require recharging (and possibly suggest charging stations when in the orange/red zone). The nav system should also display how much charging time will be required for a given charging station in order to complete the trip. Ideally, the nav system would display an Estimated Range Shortfall (ERS)

    (5) Allow detours en route (for charging, or other purposes), and show the impact of each detour on ERC and ERS as defined above.
     
  2. wpoveromo

    wpoveromo Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I had previously suggested we need a way to calculate the most efficient charging stations that takes into considering your actual range left, miles remaining on trip and amount of time you can take at each stop. It's one thing to show chargers along they way, but another that knows the types of chargers. Why stop for 2-3 hours for Level I if you can skip that charger and reach a Level II or better yet, Supercharger.
     
  3. Jason S

    Jason S Model S Sig Perf (P85)

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,350
    Location:
    Rocklin, CA
    I like all these suggestions. Some are easier than others for implementation, I'd like to see them on future releases too.

    Having rated range go by trip meter (A/B/last charge) would be a nice help. The energy graphs should the average with estimated range, but changing the rated range would help quite a bit for most folks. (I mostly use the energy graph for last 30 miles, but it seems that isn't very obvious for many people.)

    I'm convinced the Nav app uses shortest path. I'd like to have ability to switch to 'fastest path' because that often coincides with freeways and less stops. It is the stop/start that really kills mileage, imho, as long as you can keep your speed at 55mph or less on the freeway.

    The Nav system integrations would be wicked cool. Those seem like a lot of work for somebody with a ton of calculations for best path analysis every minute or so. But it would be wicked cool to have.
     
  4. ckessel

    ckessel Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,266
    Is it really cold in Chicago? In winter, I regularly used 400+ Wh/mil, but in summer with the cruise control set at 65 I got just about 310 Wh/mile. I have no idea how you'd be at 360-375 Wh/mile on the freeway unless you're doing well above the speed limit or you're into a ferocious headwind.

    While rated range is achievable, it's generally best to assume you'll get about 70-75% of the rate range to avoid cutting things close.
     
  5. montgom626

    montgom626 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,339
    Location:
    USA
    I drove >300 miles in my MS P85. The reason for your falling short was technique.
     
  6. SFOTurtle

    SFOTurtle Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,039
    Location:
    Los Altos, CA
    I'm also perplexed as to how OP was at 360-375 Wh/mile on this trip, but even so, for road tripping I agree that assuming 75% of the rated range is always good planning unless you have a lot of experience with this car and understand how to maximize range. At least in my 60, I'm regularly averaging 315 Wh/mile on the freeway when I keep my speed less than 70 mph. Perhaps it was a super hot day and the AC was cranked up? Even when doing mainly highway driving, quick acceleration up to freeway speed eats charge as well.

    I'm all in favor of improvements to the car, but I wouldn't say that the navigation and energy meters are high priority items, at least for me. Great if they can add the functions OP has requested, but I'll be just fine with these functions whether or not they are added. Just know how to use them and know your car. I've successfully used both on at least a dozens road trips of more than 250 miles the past 6 months and found them to work just fine to help me manage SOC and energy usage.
     
  7. jeffnorman

    jeffnorman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Yes I know that now! I thought the "ideal" range of 300 was reduced to 270 to yield a practical range; but I know now that is fictitious too.

    I found the following on Tesla's forum - it seems the data already exists to adjust the rated range by temperature and speed at the least... it makes no sense that Tesla has not done this already: http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/speed-vs-temperature-effect-range-graphs-your-info

    It was pretty good weather, maybe 65-75 degrees. Speed limits where 70 most places. I think cruise control actually was not very good at managing energy; I did a lot better myself when I was off of cruise control. Surprisingly, there are a lot of hills between Chicago and Detroit that I never noticed before. I think I lost most of my efficiency at the beginning on surface streets headed out to the freeway with lots of traffic lights, hills, construction zones (not too many, but they required slowing and speeding up a lot), and the 70 mile per hour speed limit. Towards the end of the trip I slowed to 55-60 mpg but I lost some efficiency going through toll stations (where as many Chicago Tesla owners know and I just discovered, iPass does not work through the magic Tesla windows) and in moderate traffic. Once I got onto Lake Shore Drive, I was able to drive 40 mph and increased my efficiency to 215 Wh/mile which is what got me home!
     
  8. Zythryn

    Zythryn MS 70D, MX 90D

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,660
    Location:
    Minnesota
    We recently took a test run from our house up to a resort in central Minnesota.
    Round trip, all in one day was 277 miles with 12 left on the rated range and 19 left on the estimated range. Our trip meter Watts/mile was around 275. We took highways, not interstates, and stuck to the speed limit until the last 30 miles (when I was confident we had plenty of juice left).
    What speeds were you traveling at? I am not sure how, this time of year, you used that much energy? Windows down at highway speeds? Or were you towing, or did you have a bike rack?

    First, I highly recommend using the energy graph. Switch to 'average' and make sure it is on 30 miles and use the range shown on the graph rather than rated.

    Second, I like the Nav, but it is, at this point, very basic and I like your suggestions.
    Adding an estimated distance based on one of the trip meters would be nice. However, I have found the last 30 miles completely sufficient.
     
  9. DEinspanjer

    DEinspanjer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    Salem, NH
    When road tripping, setting the energy meter to average is very important for determining how well you are comparing to the rated.

    Also, if you are looking to hypermile, you don't want to use cruise control and you don't even want to pay the most attention to your speed. Rather, you want to focus on the instant Wh meter on the right of the speedometer. If you can keep it between 20 and 40 for most of your time on the highway and make sure you reclaim energy on the downhills when you are at your desired speed, you will meet or beat rated. You use the minimum required energy to get up an incline, ideally bleeding off a little speed if it is safe to do so, and then get back up to speed on the downhill and reclaim any further energy available past that speed.

    If the weather is very cold, or especially if there is a headwind or it is raining, your mileage will noticeably suffer.

    Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk HD
     
  10. jeffnorman

    jeffnorman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    There is simply no way to do that driving 70 mph on a freeway... even on a straight away with no hills, no one pulling out in front of me, no passing, and on cruise control the average wh/mile never went below 325 - there isn't any technique to driving a single speed on a straight away!? I can get 215 Wh/mile when I am going 45 without stops so I am pretty sure my technique is fine. But that isn't real world. When I took it off cruise control and reduced my speed taking county roads, I got 215 Wh/mile. I didn't buy the Tesla to drive 50 mph on a 70 mph freeway and have trucks blasting their horns to get me off the road.

    And even if I had a lead foot and sucked energy, so what? My point is that the Nav and Energy displays don''t give enough info.. Most of the time when driving on the freeway, I was able to keep my energy consumption at or below the "rated" line so I was certain I would make it; at least until I wasn't so certain. Knowing that energy consumption would be key to making the trip, I kept my eyes on the Energy app constantly when on the freeway and rarely exceeded the rated line even on the 5 mile average and never exceeded it on the 30 mile average... so i really think my 43 mile "error" versus rated had very little to do with my driving. Given that I was mostly doing better than rated when I looked at the energy app, I thought at first I would not even have to stop to top off my charge... but somehow when I got halfway I was already lower than I should have been by 30 miles.

    I would actually love to know where the 43 miles went, but I have no way to figure it out since the apps don't do logging and don't provide trip data. I took a slight detour to do the top off charging .. there was a lot more stop and go when I got near Chicago... other than that IDK.

    More importantly, I did not realize how far off I was from rated range until I was halfway there and then they did not help at all in alerting me to the fact that my average Wh/Mile must have been higher than rated (or else the energy simply disappeared, I don't know because there is no information on the apps to tell me), or in solving the problem when I realized it was a problem. Keeping an eye on the energy app does not really help to identify where/how/when you have excessive energy consumption unless you happen to see it and know it is abnormal.

    Here are some questions I think the Nav/Energy apps should be able to answer without my having to pull off the road and fire up my laptop to figure it out on my own:

    (1) How much charging do I need when topping off in order to make it to my destination at my average consumption, adjusted for highway speeds and temperatures per http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/speed-vs-temperature-effect-range-graphs-your-info. I could have stayed another 30 minutes at my halfway point and would have gained enough charge to go at normal speeds, but I was looking at rated range and thinking I was not that far off.

    (2) Alert me when my average Wh/mile for a *trip* exceeds the rated range wh/mile (I watched this display and kept my 30 mile average wh/mile at or below rated on the freeway.. but I still fell short 43 miles; that is a big shortfall and I have no idea what caused that since there is no log, no alert, etc.)

    (3) Would it be better to get off the freeway (at the energy sucking 70mph) and take a county road at 55mph? To answer, you would need to know the actual average at 70mph versus 55pmh, adjusted to temperature... And then you would need to map out the alternate route (which the nav system can't do) and compare mileage. Seems like something perfect for a nav computer. Are you really able to calculate that in your head while driving?

    (4) Would it be better (in overall trip time) to go 70mph to the next J1772 charging station (taking account of detour times) and charge up more, versus going the country road route (would have to calculate item 3 first, and then an alternative with charging included)? And if charging is needed, which detour to take?

    Even if I had time to stop to figure all this out on my own, I didn't have the data so I had to wing it and I probably guessed poorly without good data or time to figure it all out. I know better now and can make some assumptions for my next trip, but it isn't for lack of technique.
     
  11. jeffnorman

    jeffnorman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Hmm.. This http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/13220-Putting-some-numbers-on-the-factors-that-affect-range explains my 42 miles of loss pretty much. 6% because of my 21 inch tires, and 12% due to traveling at 70mph for the first half of the trip... equals almost exactly the loss versus rated range.

    Seems to underscore the need for the energy app and nav app to incorporate this information ... I cannot imagine trying to calculate this on the fly. The poster in the referenced thread did so in advance, which I guess is what I will need to do in the future.
     
  12. bradc

    bradc Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I average 375 Wh/mi on road trips when I have passengers and a bike rack. Without the bike rack I average about 315-325 Wh/mi. Both averages are for driving with all windows/roof closed, air conditioning on, and speeds around 70 MPH.

    If you're driving as described and only getting 360-375 Wh/mi, there must be something to account for the high energy consumed. If it's not uphill both ways, are you driving with windows or the roof open? Anything on the roof rack, or towing anything? Extreme weather? Any other mods to the car?
     
  13. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    Respectfully, once again TMC has sidetracked. For a moment presume he said 301 Wh/mi or 1601 Wh/mi. Take your pick, it doesn't matter.

    The point he's trying to make is that the car could be dramatically improved in providing a lower-stress experience by giving the user much better feedback regardless of where he is in the [hyper-miling, driving up Everest in a blizzard] spectrum.
     
  14. spleen

    spleen Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,125
    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    +1, agreed with this. Think that that the nav and the energy screens could be improved to better estimate real world range and how many more miles to empty, regardless of technique. He's not asking for hypermilling techniques though those would have improved his range. Another thing to add to the request list to ownership.
     
  15. ORB

    ORB Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    Messages:
    77
    Location:
    Sunnyvale, CA
    @jeff,

    One option (which I haven't tried yet, others can correct me on this) is to set up Nav mode with your destination loaded and drive its prescribed route with the Energy graph mode set to Projected Range displayed (with the 30 mi. average setting). Then proceed on cruise control for a while to even out fluctuations, then compare the displayed projected range with the miles remaining indicator shown inside the Nav mode info inset window. Ideally the Projected range should exceed the miles remaining by about 20 mi. or so for the speed you're doing and other conditions.

    Hope this helps,
    Oliver
     
  16. Zythryn

    Zythryn MS 70D, MX 90D

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,660
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Jeff and Brainman, my reason for asking this was not to go off topic but to ascertain if something was wrong with the car. That is a huge average over a long trip this time of year.
    There is some basic understanding of what affects energy use that will help you on your next trip.

    I always try to charge more than I think I need. Why cut it close? You should never judge by rated range if you haven't been getting about 305 Watts/mile the entire trip. In your case you were doing worse than this in the first part of your trip and better later on, but not enough to get even close to a 305 average.

    While there were not any flashing lights or horns, you had this alert, you just didn't see it. If your average for the trip was 380, then one leg of your trip must have been well over that. The energy screen set to 30 miles and 'average' will give you an estimated trip distance. If you see that distance much lower than your expected remaining miles you need to take corrective action.

    You are making it too complicated. Is the distance on each writhing 10%? If so, then yes. Temp is the same on each I am guessing. Route distance only needs to be close. Yes, it will be nice when these type of calculations are done automatically by the Nav system. Tesla has issues higher on the list which have gotten updated first. They want the best driving experience for everyone and I am sure they want to make improvements in lots of places. It works well for me on my 277 mile trip, I am sorry it didn't for you.

    Took me 20 second for mine, but it may have been an easier set of choices.
    Eyeballing it will work better for you as you get more experience with what factors affect mileage.
    The speed may not have been your biggest challenge. You mentioned lots of construction and tolls. Tolls I would expect were a big killer. Getting the Model S up to freeway speeds is a huge drain, doing so repeatedly even more so. Did you by chance see what the average Watts/mile was over the Toll section of your trip?
    If not, you may want to try just that leg sometime to see how bad it is.
    Sop and go traffic sucks up the power as well. If possible your best bet is 55-60 mph on highways or county highways. Freeways without tolls would be next.
    Is in possible to place your Toll Pass in the nosecone, does it work there?
    If it has to be on the windshield there is a spot right next to the mirror that may also work.
     
  17. montgom626

    montgom626 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,339
    Location:
    USA
    The three T's

    That is the point. The three T's. Technique (lead foot) temperature and terrain.
     
  18. DEinspanjer

    DEinspanjer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    Salem, NH
    I am sorry I succumbed to the temptation to provide hypermile techniques advice instead of focusing on the subject of the thread.

    I definitely agree that there are several really good enhancements that could be made to more tightly integrate the Nav and Energy apps.

    On my road trip from NH to Memphis TN, one of the things I thought about during the long legs of the trip was a more intelligent cruise control and maybe an "energy-saving coach" as well.

    Obviously, adaptive cruise would be a good feature to add to bring the car up to spec with many of the other luxury sedans, but I was thinking that an intelligent cruise option would be very interesting.

    Here is my walk through of how things could maybe work:

    Prerequisites:

    1. The Nav app knows where you are going
    1a. The distance remaining
    1b. The road types for the route
    1c. (maybe) the actual speed limits for the roads on the route
    1d. The user's preference for speed (there might be a liability issue with setting the desired speed above the speed limits)
    1e. The traffic conditions
    1f. (maybe) tolls and required stops
    1g. The elevation changes (I've noticed that the Garmin side of the Nav does show elevation changes, so I suspect this is already available)

    2. The Energy app knows the current state your car
    2a. The amount of battery available
    2b. The temperature
    2c. The type of tires installed
    2d. Accessory energy consumption
    2e. (maybe) the curb weight? if you had active suspension could it roughly measure that? Dunno.
    2f. Current rain conditions (through the auto sensing wipers

    3. The internet could supply some additional variables
    3a. Better weather data (temperature, wind, rain/snow) for entire route
    3b. Expected traffic conditions in the future along route (i.e. in two hours, it will be 5 PM and going through a city)


    Nav app expectations:

    1. Provide an additional estimate of how much battery will be remaining when you reach your destination, taking all the available data into account
    2. Provide a list of charging options along route along with how much of a delay will be required to charge enough to reach the destination
    3. Customize the route or offer alternatives that might be more efficient

    Energy app expectations:

    1. Provide clear warning indicators if energy consumption is higher than recommended to reach destination
    2. Provide a burn-down chart showing the required maximum rate of energy usage necessary to reach destination and plot the current usage against that. The useful thing about a burn-down chart is that it constantly provides a "from this moment forward" guide. If you are using less energy than the guide at the moment, the burn-down gets better because you have more spare. If you are using more energy than the guide at the moment, the burn-down gets worse because you will have to make that energy back at some point in the future.

    Cruise control expectations:
    (again, adaptive cruise is a requirement for this to be feasible)
    1. Have a desired speed range instead of an absolute set-point.
    2. Use the data available regarding current and future elevation as well as traffic and upcoming tolls/stops to make the most efficient use of energy, basically implementing hypermile techniques to optimize when to spend energy, and when to reclaim it.
    3. Even if cruise is disabled, it might still be valuable to provide recommendation indicators for speed and instant Wh usage to assist the driver in meeting their goals on arriving at their destination with the desired amount of battery left.
     
  19. jeffnorman

    jeffnorman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    No issue here .. I think it was a bit off topic but I actually did not think about watching the speedo instant wh/mile readout and keeping that within 20-40 was a good rule of thumb I would not have known. ... I DID watch (religiously) the average energy readout, switching often between 5 mile average and 30 mile average. But that didn't help; I paid very little attention to the speedo readout though and in any case I was specifically NOT trying to hypermile (until the end when I had to in order to make it home). Even though I kept my average on the highway at or below the rated line, somehow I ended up losing 40+ miles. I think that you were correct though that the speed had less to do with the losses, though it hurt. If I had been driving at 55, I would have beat the rated by a good margin according to the graphs I found referenced above, and so the tolls, construction, traffic, getting to and from the freeway, etc. would have averaged out lower.

    I like all of your ideas, and maybe what I really wanted was a more intelligent cruise control (and adaptive one like on my former ICE AMG would have been really nice). I am sure as others have said that I will eventually get a "feel" for these things, but for new owners (and especially those of us who have never had an EV or Hybrid) providing user-friendly apps would make the difference between buyer's remorse and buyer's exuberance in the first few months.

    What I would really like the car to tell me - instantly and on average - are two things: (1) what driving range I should expect under current conditions, and (2) whether my driving at any given moment is than expected. In order to provide this feedback, what really is needed is an integration between the Nav and Energy (and possibly cruise control) that takes provides meaningful (real time ideally) feedback in terms of (a) acceleration (this is your suggestion of keeping the speedo energy meter 20-40), (b) speed (seems like a big factor on a long trip), and (c) route... which advice has to take into account: destination distance and routing alternatives; temperatures along the route; weather along the route;posted speed limits (presumed best case); average traffic speeds (probably worst case - if higher than posted then more energy, if lower it means heavy traffic); vehicle weight load; and AC usage.

    For example, if I am on a freeway where the speed limit is 70mph, the temperature is 90 degrees and I am using the AC on medium, and it is raining heavily, it appears from the chart I should expect no more than 170 miles range on a full max range charge more or less. It would be great to know this when I enter my destination in the nav .. and when I am driving if my rated range decreases from that it should tell me why and how to correct.
     
  20. Zythryn

    Zythryn MS 70D, MX 90D

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,660
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Agreed that those would be nice additions.
    But I am still curious why you say
    The car does tell you this for current and recent driving history.
    You mentioned you watched the energy app and it did not help.
    What I am wondering is if your energy app is broken and needs an update.

    My energy app shows an average over 5,15 or 30 miles with the estimated remaining range based on that 5,15 or 30 miles. I can also switch it to 'instant' to but it is so 'noisy' I do not find that all that useful.
    In addition to the estimated range, the energy graph provides a dotted line above or below the solid 'rated' horizontal line. This shows me if, over the 5,15 or 30 miles if my energy use is better or worse than the rated.

    Yes, again, I agree it would be nice to incorporate this into the Nav. But if this wasn't showing for you you should contact service and see if they can resolve that.
     

Share This Page