You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Come north, try again. You'll never get through the Canadian rockies relying on the in-car planner.Every time I have used the car trip planner, it has been accurate. I have to use a speed correction of 1.2 on Evtripplanner to match actual.
Come north, try again. You'll never get through the Canadian rockies relying on the in-car planner.
Are you kidding! North to me is Maui.Come north, try again. You'll never get through the Canadian rockies relying on the in-car planner.
I have driven all over the western US and the elevation data has been spot on. Must be a Canadian thing.and has poor elevation data.
To be fair, I don't entirely know what data the car has wrong on those sections of road, I know it has the speed limit wrong, but there has to be more based on the estimates it gives, because even driving at what it thinks the speed limit is (10 under what the posted limit is) you won't make it. My best guess is that the elevation data is wrong. It looks reasonable on the graph, but it's possibly the right shape, but not the right magnitude.I have driven all over the western US and the elevation data has been spot on. Must be a Canadian thing.
I've tried evtripplanner. It doesn't get formatted properly in the tesla browser.Has anyone tried using evtripplanner or evtripping or abetterrouteplanner, etc using the Tesla web browser on a trip? Just wondering how the response is with the browser. It'll be interesting to compare it to Tesla's built in planner.
I had a couple minor issues with abetterrouteplanner in the Tesla browser originally but the developer fixed all of the issues that I mentioned to him. I'll be putting it to a test during a long road trip this weekend.Has anyone tried using evtripplanner or evtripping or abetterrouteplanner, etc using the Tesla web browser on a trip? Just wondering how the response is with the browser. It'll be interesting to compare it to Tesla's built in planner.
I still use the incar planner while on the road because none of the others respond well in the Tesla browser.Has anyone tried using evtripplanner or evtripping or abetterrouteplanner, etc using the Tesla web browser on a trip? Just wondering how the response is with the browser. It'll be interesting to compare it to Tesla's built in planner.
Must be nice to live in the US. The superchargers in this country are spaced such that a 50% buffer would not be possible.I actually do a 50% buffer when charging so that I can speed if I want to.
I don't understand why payload is an input. I just did an experiment with evtripplanner.com. On a 2,200 mile trip across the western U.S. changing only the payload from 100 lb. to 400 lb. changed the energy consumption from 820.6 kWh to 821.0 kWh. That trip had a -4,400 ft. elevation change. For another 1,254 mi. trip, San Francisco to Denver, the net elevation change is +5,179 ft. and the energy consumption change with payload increasing from 100 to 400 lb. is from 476.4 to 477.6 kWh. Increasing payload to 800 lb. takes energy use up to 479.2 kWh -- 0.6% more than at 100 lb.One of the things I like about evtripplanner is the ability to enter wind, temperature and payload. Temperature and wind make a huge difference, and it does a pretty darn good job estimating Wh/mi based on those inputs.
I think that's why ABetterRoutePlanner (and maybe others?) leave it off. At ABetterRoutePlanner, you can adjust the "Consumption at 65 mph" value to account for wind, temperature, etc. but I guess you don't really know what value to put there until you are actually driving in that weather.I don't understand why payload is an input. I just did an experiment with evtripplanner.com. On a 2,200 mile trip across the western U.S. changing only the payload from 100 lb. to 400 lb. changed the energy consumption from 820.6 kWh to 821.0 kWh. That trip had a -4,400 ft. elevation change. For another 1,254 mi. trip, San Francisco to Denver, the net elevation change is +5,179 ft. and the energy consumption change with payload increasing from 100 to 400 lb. is from 476.4 to 477.6 kWh. Increasing payload to 800 lb. takes energy use up to 479.2 kWh -- 0.6% more than at 100 lb.
New Every time I have used the car trip planner, it has been accurate. I have to use a speed correction of 1.2 on Evtripplanner to match actual.