-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Departure Time Charging Update in UK?
- Thread starter Rob R
- Start date
pdk42
Active Member
I Think that page is only available to those with a login - the public page is TeslaFi.com Firmware Tracker
MrBadger
Badger out
Your right, I do indeed need to log in to view it. I'll get it deleted. Some people like disagreeing with pages subsequently corrected.
So corrected...
I would think it will be in 2019.36
Nothing yet showing TeslaFi.com Firmware Tracker
MrBadger
Badger out
Unless you are putting a fair chunk of charge into the battery it won’t eliminate limited regen entirely. 7kW is a pretty modest charge rate in terms of hearing the pack, and of course the ambient temperature plays a big part.
Nonetheless it’s a welcome feature improvement that’s been on the request list for years.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
I only have MS experience in past winters, but once into proper winter, temperatures 0C - 5C say, then definitely have limited regen on morning departure, and charging for an hour or more immediately before departure doesn't fix it (it maybe reduces it ...)
When I last had a go at investigating then TeslaFi was showing that battery heater came on (during charging when cold), but it didn't stay on for very long. I don't think there is any TeslaFi data for battery temperature - i.e. would need CANBUS / Scan my Tesla etc.
Will be interesting to see if the new "Precondition for departure time" runs the battery heater or Stators (or is that the same thing?) to heat the battery more.
Might be worth navigating to Supercharger, if one is available nearby, to fool the car into battery heating
Might be worth navigating to Supercharger, if one is available nearby, to fool the car into battery heating
I've thought that too but I think they're one step ahead of us. AFAIK, supercharger preconditioning only happens when car is in drive, and it won't go into drive when charger is connected, so it will be using battery to precondition.
You'd expect it to have more effect in very deep winter: if temp is below the critical temperature (which I think is 0C, but hard to be certain), then it won't be able to charge at all without heating. Hence having recently charged should guarantee that you don't have regen totally disabled, but it won't do enough to get you full regen (for which I believe the threshold is somewhere around 10C).
Will be interesting to see if the new "Precondition for departure time" runs the battery heater or Stators (or is that the same thing?) to heat the battery more.
Might be worth navigating to Supercharger, if one is available nearby, to fool the car into battery heating
Question is, what is your motivation for wanting this?
If it's because you like the 1-pedal driving experience and regard limited regen as spoiling that, then fine - tricks to heat the battery will help, but it will cost you money.
If it's because you regret the energy lost by not having the regen, then I suspect the extra energy to heat the battery will be more than the 'win' from extra regen.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I meant once you set off - to accelerate the battery heating rate (compared to normal journey). Obviously not as good as setting off with full regen though.
I had reduced regen yesterday - went out without any pre-planning. Although it wasn't all that cold I was surprised how quickly full Regen returned. I'll keep an eye on it as we go into Winter, but I wonder if it has changed since lat Winter and the car is already diverting more heat to battery at "set off". Bjorn's videos with his CANBUS monitor show the Stators being used aggressively to generate waste heat, that might be something that Tesla has become more experienced with as a result of the M3P project and might have improved in a recent update. All speculation on my part though.
Its this. I would like one pedal driving to be constant (for me, using the friction brakes to achieve that constant-balance would be fine. From memory the iPace does that). I pull out of my drive and the first few junctions I come to take my brain "a moment" to register that the car is not slowing down like it usually does and then I brake. I suppose it is just mildly annoying, rather than dangerous, but across the whole fleet? I recon someone is going to be caught out by it and not "catch" it in time.
You are right about overall energy. All unnecessary power loss bothers me - we have nothing in the house on standby that I can avoid, and a Tesla sat on the drive with battery going down bothers me, let alone heating battery to have full regen (but maybe I also have more efficient battery chemistry and better wH/mile too? [I dunno that one ...])
Compared to a handful of years ago when we had incandescent bulbs in the house (and ICE
] I suppose I am using far, far less energy, but all waste still bothers me. My solution is to make my own, installing PV over all the roof space, but #1 daughter tells me this is bad because of the CO2 in PV manufacture, which the planet doesn't want, and I would be better off just to use Grid and wait for it to be predominantly North Sea Wind, as overall my CO2 will be less than if I put PV on the roof ...We too have invested a lot of time and effort to make ourselves as low energy impact as possible. However we have also covered the roof and garrage with PV (and recently a Powerwall2 to store and timeshift production). We also use the car as a semi-dispatchable load when at home to absorb excess power when it’s sunny, but charge the PW2 and car primarily from low carbon electricity available in the small hours.
Regarding views of Daughter #1 - this blog entry
Solar panels now pay back the energy used to make them in little more than a year | Carbon Commentary
from the excellent ‘Carbon Commentry’ site discusses a 2016 analysis that estimates the carbon ‘payback’ from a PV panel at about a years production ie around 1/25th of its lifetime generation. So 96% of PV electricity is genuinely carbon free.
Bear in mind that North Sea wind build out will also have a manufacturing, installation and maintenance carbon impact....
So all in all, best not to wait for someone else to do something in my books. We all need to do as much as we can right now.... that, sadly, is the nature of an emergency.
Regarding views of Daughter #1 - this blog entry
Solar panels now pay back the energy used to make them in little more than a year | Carbon Commentary
from the excellent ‘Carbon Commentry’ site discusses a 2016 analysis that estimates the carbon ‘payback’ from a PV panel at about a years production ie around 1/25th of its lifetime generation. So 96% of PV electricity is genuinely carbon free.
Bear in mind that North Sea wind build out will also have a manufacturing, installation and maintenance carbon impact....
So all in all, best not to wait for someone else to do something in my books. We all need to do as much as we can right now.... that, sadly, is the nature of an emergency.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
#1 daughter's view is that the planet cannot afford any unnecessary CO2 production, so the payback is not the issue. A new building shouldn't use new bricks etc. for that reason ... even though the CO2 created in production will then be offset against centuries of "use"
In 50 years time, once the whole CO2 thing has been solved, then you can have brand new bricks ... and PV panels
The CO2 in North Sea buildout trumps that for things like Bricks and PV panels (according to the lecture I received!) ... all in terms of amount of CO2 produced, rather than "payback time".
We had an interesting debate about it
(she's a passive house consultant working for [by my ranking ] the top eco design specialist in the country.)Not sure I understand the logic behind #1 daughters thinking...
Emitting CO2 to build offshore wind turbines that displace fossil fuels and so reduce net CO2 production is OK. But doing the same to build PV panels that will also reduce net CO2 emissions is not ?
Aren’t these two scenarios essentially the same ?
Except one is something you can do yourself next week, and the other is something that is out of our hands and will take decades to fully implement.
Emitting CO2 to build offshore wind turbines that displace fossil fuels and so reduce net CO2 production is OK. But doing the same to build PV panels that will also reduce net CO2 emissions is not ?
Aren’t these two scenarios essentially the same ?
Except one is something you can do yourself next week, and the other is something that is out of our hands and will take decades to fully implement.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Her viewpoint is that there is "X" CO2 in building North Sea Wind and "Z" for the PV panels I buy.
For my personal electricity use my portion of X would be less than Z. However, North Sea Wind not fully rolled out yet:
If I use regular Grid electricity until North Sea Wind is fully rolled out, using an additional "Y" amount of CO2 as a consequence, then X + Y will still less than Z, so on that basis I should wait for North Sea Wind rather than put PV panels on my roof.
It may be splitting hairs, in the case of PV, but I found it an interesting viewpoint for other things that emit a lot of CO2 in production (concrete / construction materials) and has moved my thinking away from "offset against whole of life" being OK/sufficient. Any CO2 we produce, now, is a problem ... until we have figured out how to properly offset that and stabilise the atmosphere, which is going to take several decades to achieve.
Sorry, have wandered off topic.
For my personal electricity use my portion of X would be less than Z. However, North Sea Wind not fully rolled out yet:
If I use regular Grid electricity until North Sea Wind is fully rolled out, using an additional "Y" amount of CO2 as a consequence, then X + Y will still less than Z, so on that basis I should wait for North Sea Wind rather than put PV panels on my roof.
It may be splitting hairs, in the case of PV, but I found it an interesting viewpoint for other things that emit a lot of CO2 in production (concrete / construction materials) and has moved my thinking away from "offset against whole of life" being OK/sufficient. Any CO2 we produce, now, is a problem ... until we have figured out how to properly offset that and stabilise the atmosphere, which is going to take several decades to achieve.
Sorry, have wandered off topic.
A bit off topic but I'd be interested to know if your new car does different. I wonder whether regen limiting is different on different editions of the car, because my Raven S has been limiting it every day pretty much all autumn, so I don't think it needs temperature to drop as low as 5.
hmmm... can you direct me to instructions for Teslafi as to how? All I can see there is that this has been a support request for over two years (and therefore not yet possible?)
Schedule a charge that finishes at a specific time / General / TeslaFi
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
What I do (which is definitely not a "charge to stop at" solution) is:
Reduce Charge Limit to 80% at Midnight (start of E7 Off Peak)
Start charging at midnight (car is set to do this, not TeslaFi, in case TeslaFi fails to communicate with the car for any reason ... I'll live with Charge Limit not being reduced
)An hour before departure (e.g. 5AM)
Increase Limit to 90%
5 minutes later (to allow TelsaFi to retry previous if necessary) Start Charging
15 minutes before departure turn HVAC on
15 minutes after expected departure turn HVAC off (otherwise ti will stay on
)I leave home the same time Mon-Fri ... this solution is a PITA for variable departure time as I have to change all 4 of the items in the second section (would like TeslaFi to allow "grouping" ... TesalFi Scheduling is very basic)
My thinking is that I want to be sure of "enough charge", in the event of power cut etc., so I want to start charging as soon as Off Peak available.
Then I want to charge some more shortly prior to departure. This is probably only relevant in Winter in order to warm battery and minimise regen throttling.
Ah... ok. Think I understand her reasoning... but I’m not really convinced.
If a PV panel ‘repays’ it’s carbon debt in 1.4years, and, for the sake of argument, a North Sea wind turbine repays its debt in 8 months then you are dependent on the North Sea turbine build out being quick enough so that your additional ‘dirty’ consumption ( that results from you NOT installing PV) in the meantime is less than the difference between them.
The problem there is that the speed of turbine build out is not in your hands. It’s also a convenient excuse that the less informed (and the actively disingenuous) can use to delay doing anything at all. So things stay as they are and more CO2 is released while everyone sits on their hands.
By contrast adding PV now will reduce load on the grid, add diversity to the energy mix, offset dirty generation and, possibly most importantly, send a message that addressing the climate emergency is something that can be done NOW by almost anyone.
This is not something that we can just sit back and wait for others to sort out on our behalf. It requires a mobilisation that addresses the problem from all sides. Not just the low hanging fruit like wind turbines and PV, but every apple, tangerine, grape, mellon, raspberry and lemon in the shop.... and this needs to happen right now. Not at some point in the future when ‘someone else’ has sorted it.
As you said, a bit off topic.... and sorry for the rant. But this stuff is seriously important. As Greta said, we will never forgive you. And I can understand why they wouldn’t....
Similar threads
- Suggestion
