I find the energy usage graph very noisy, especially in city driving. It drops down whenever you stop at a traffic light and jumps up when you accelerate from a complete stop. This creates a ton of spikes which hide the bigger picture of your energy usage.
When you accelerate from 0 to some speed the graph shows that you spent a ton of energy just to travel a few meters. But that’s not true. Most of the energy was converted into kinetic energy (equal to m*V^2/2).
When you are gliding, the energy graph shows 0 Wh/km (Wh/mi). But that’s not true. You are using up your kinetic energy and as a result you are losing speed.
When you are using regen, the energy graph shows that you are gaining energy back(goes into negative). But that’s not true. You are converting kinetic energy into chemical energy of the battery and this process is it is not 100% efficient.
When you are braking with regular breaks, the graph shows no energy used. But in fact your brakes have just converted all the kinetic energy into heat.
A possible solution is to take the kinetic energy into account and display the changes in the battery energy and the kinetic energy. The change in the kinetic energy is: m * (V1 ^ 2 - V0 ^ 2) / 2, where m is the mass of the car, V0 is the speed at the start of the time interval and V1 is the speed at the end.
The exact mass of the loaded car is not known, but it can be estimated to be the nominal weight of the car plus one weight of an average person or two - if the passenger seat sensor detects a passenger.
It may also be useful to take into account the changes in the gravitational potential energy: m * g * (h1 - h0), where h0 and h1 are the elevations at the start and the end of the time interval. The change in elevation could be retrieved from the GPS or from Google Maps (https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/elevation/https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/elevation/). The elevation changes would be useful to smooth out local changes. But if the whole trip starts and ends at very different elevation levels then this feature may lead to overly optimistic (going uphill) or pessimistic (going downhill) range projections. So this part may need to be optional.
A graph that takes the kinetic and the potential energy into account would be less noisy and more informative. It would be much easier to see the effect of changes in factors that are under the driver’s control: average speed, A/C or heat usage, tire pressure, etc.
I don't think I have permissions to add a poll, but I do want to get sense of whether you would like this feature or not. So please use the 'Rate This Thread' link at the top.
When you accelerate from 0 to some speed the graph shows that you spent a ton of energy just to travel a few meters. But that’s not true. Most of the energy was converted into kinetic energy (equal to m*V^2/2).
When you are gliding, the energy graph shows 0 Wh/km (Wh/mi). But that’s not true. You are using up your kinetic energy and as a result you are losing speed.
When you are using regen, the energy graph shows that you are gaining energy back(goes into negative). But that’s not true. You are converting kinetic energy into chemical energy of the battery and this process is it is not 100% efficient.
When you are braking with regular breaks, the graph shows no energy used. But in fact your brakes have just converted all the kinetic energy into heat.
A possible solution is to take the kinetic energy into account and display the changes in the battery energy and the kinetic energy. The change in the kinetic energy is: m * (V1 ^ 2 - V0 ^ 2) / 2, where m is the mass of the car, V0 is the speed at the start of the time interval and V1 is the speed at the end.
The exact mass of the loaded car is not known, but it can be estimated to be the nominal weight of the car plus one weight of an average person or two - if the passenger seat sensor detects a passenger.
It may also be useful to take into account the changes in the gravitational potential energy: m * g * (h1 - h0), where h0 and h1 are the elevations at the start and the end of the time interval. The change in elevation could be retrieved from the GPS or from Google Maps (https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/elevation/https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/elevation/). The elevation changes would be useful to smooth out local changes. But if the whole trip starts and ends at very different elevation levels then this feature may lead to overly optimistic (going uphill) or pessimistic (going downhill) range projections. So this part may need to be optional.
A graph that takes the kinetic and the potential energy into account would be less noisy and more informative. It would be much easier to see the effect of changes in factors that are under the driver’s control: average speed, A/C or heat usage, tire pressure, etc.
I don't think I have permissions to add a poll, but I do want to get sense of whether you would like this feature or not. So please use the 'Rate This Thread' link at the top.
