Range Failure

[DCGOO]

For route planning any real trips even Google is better than the car is. If only I could get the browser in the car to work properly that would be a big benefit. Weren't they supposed to upgrade the browser to Chrome or something?

ABRP works perfectly on the browser in the car. If you log in, any prior work you may have done on a different platform, is loaded up, ready to go.

 

[gnuarm]

ABRP works perfectly on the browser in the car. If you log in, any prior work you may have done on a different platform, is loaded up, ready to go.

I guess it works for you. There are days when it doesn't work at all for me. This browser has many failures and rough edges. When I try to bring up plugshare it won't let me tap the cookie message to get rid of it, the button is half off the screen and I keep getting climate controls. Then when I try to select things in the filters they turn off and right back on! Or the browser just freezes on most any site.

ABRP isn't the answer to planning your trips in a Tesla anyway. ABRP requires you to set the mileage figure for your car and that number is essentially plucked from air.

It is amusing that many didn't expect the demand for Teslas to fall off once the initial backlog was filled. These cars are not just new in their own right (buggy and erratic), EVs are new to anyone driving today and will require significant user adjustments to get used to. This simply won't happen overnight.

 

[juliusa]

When hundreds of thousands of people have figured out how to get from A to B in their Tesla, clearly the car has the necessary instrumentation and capability.

Lots of people run out of gas each year. I expect no different from EVs.

It is a function of the person more than the vehicle or technology.

 

[Krazaak]

I don't agree about the "severely" limited regen at 91% charge. I monitored it carefully one time and at 100% obviously the regen was zip. At 98% it was usable for gentle driving. By 95% it was about half of full capability which means no degradation unless you do hard engine braking. If you don't drive aggressively (and don't use the blinking autopilot) you don't need aggressive engine braking. Even at 98%, it's not like you have lost all benefit. You lose the peaks only. So I think the mileage impact of this is often overstated.

The Model X is capable of ~72kW of regen. At 91% I wasn't even getting 50 kW. It's hard to know exactly because the graph isn't well marked. Regen has a drastic impact on efficiency in stop and go scenarios, unless you coast to every stop. One light turning yellow at the wrong time on a 45 mph street can easily mean a lost mile of range. In most places, you'd infuriate the traffic behind you using regen above 95% for every stop. At 98%, full regen barely even slows the vehicle.

I'm not sure what we should learn from this. You originally mentioned that the trip graph was the "greatest tool" available, then you don't really mention it any further.

I have been using the trip graph and I don't see any information I don't get from watching the estimated remaining charge. In fact, the remaining charge estimate is much more sensitive at the beginning showing numbers. While those same numbers are shown in the trip graph, the curve itself doesn't diverge much early in the trip since the change in final charge requires a much smaller deviation in the slope of the line in the early part than subsequent changes later along the trip which require more significant changes in the line slope. I took some photos of my trip graphs and they nearly all show no apparent change in the graph in the earlier portion of the trip even though most of the predicted improvement in final SoC happened there.

So why is this view any better than just monitoring the estimated final SoC?

Because predicted SoC at arrival tells you what and the trip and consumption graphs tell you why. Every part of my example was referring to the predicted vs. actual SoC on the trip graph. Your whole point of this post is that the predicted SoC didn't work for you and you don't know why. On the graph during my trip, I could easily see that picked up 4% of predicted SoC by efficient driving on level road, similar to your graph from 50mi +. As soon as I hit the mountains, the slope of actual vs. predicted steepened and I crossed the predicted line. As some point during your original trip, it should have been apparent that you were consuming more energy than the car expected you to be at that point.

 

[gnuarm]

The Model X is capable of ~72kW of regen. At 91% I wasn't even getting 50 kW. It's hard to know exactly because the graph isn't well marked. Regen has a drastic impact on efficiency in stop and go scenarios, unless you coast to every stop. One light turning yellow at the wrong time on a 45 mph street can easily mean a lost mile of range. In most places, you'd infuriate the traffic behind you using regen above 95% for every stop. At 98%, full regen barely even slows the vehicle.

I'm not sure you really read what I wrote. The full regen is fairly hard braking. I try to avoid it when I have someone in the car which means I have to take autopilot off when approaching a traffic light. Otherwise 50 kW is perfectly fine for nearly all of my driving, even stop and go doesn't need to accelerate and slow down at high rates. In fact, even before driving a Tesla I would drift up to traffic slowly and accelerate gently when traffic moves ahead. This helps everyone use less fuel and is easy on the brakes.

The only time other drivers are "infuriated" is when they don't understand that by not following on someone's bumper at 70 mph doesn't mean I'm not going just as fast as traffic and they try to pass me on the right. They typically don't get far... but we are talking about regen limitations... lol

Because predicted SoC at arrival tells you what and the trip and consumption graphs tell you why. Every part of my example was referring to the predicted vs. actual SoC on the trip graph.

But the reality was you reported numbers as the evidence the graph was "correct". Why not just look at the numbers? There was nothing the graph reported that wasn't more clear by looking at the numbers.

Your whole point of this post is that the predicted SoC didn't work for you and you don't know why. On the graph during my trip, I could easily see that picked up 4% of predicted SoC by efficient driving on level road, similar to your graph from 50mi +. As soon as I hit the mountains, the slope of actual vs. predicted steepened and I crossed the predicted line. As some point during your original trip, it should have been apparent that you were consuming more energy than the car expected you to be at that point.

That is my point. The trip graph doesn't even show clearly where much less why I saved fuel. On the earlier part of the graph savings make a minor deviation in the slope of the line, so small you can't even see it given the broad line widths. The majority of the reported fuel savings comes in the earliest portions of the trip usually and so don't show up on the graph. It is only later on the graph where a 1 or 2 % savings in remaining charge becomes visible as separation between the two lines. In fact, it is very hard to see differences between expected and observed consumption rates since on this graph the consumption rate is the slope of the line. To see small differences in the slope is not so easy really. Where do you think the greatest difference in consumption occurred in the image I provided?

The trip graph can fool you by hiding early savings along the trip. The reported remaining charge numbers don't lie.

 

[Krazaak]

That is my point. The trip graph doesn't even show clearly where much less why I saved fuel. On the earlier part of the graph savings make a minor deviation in the slope of the line, so small you can't even see it given the broad line widths. The majority of the reported fuel savings comes in the earliest portions of the trip usually and so don't show up on the graph. It is only later on the graph where a 1 or 2 % savings in remaining charge becomes visible as separation between the two lines. In fact, it is very hard to see differences between expected and observed consumption rates since on this graph the consumption rate is the slope of the line. To see small differences in the slope is not so easy really. Where do you think the greatest difference in consumption occurred in the image I provided?

The trip graph can fool you by hiding early savings along the trip. The reported remaining charge numbers don't lie.

The trip graph you posted shows you that you started driving more efficiently than the vehicle expected 50 miles into your trip. If you had started driving more aggressively at a later point, it would have shown that be the two lines starting to converge again. Based on the slope of the line, you can get a rough idea of trends for literally every mile of your trip.

You're telling me you get all the information you need from the projected SoC, but you're the one posting about the range estimate being broken, so you're clearly not getting all the info you needed. Likewise, complaining about the top 10% of the battery going faster than the rest in another thread, while a good number of others (myself included) can attribute that loss to regen, which you clearly undervalue.

I don't know what to tell you, but I feel that any further effort of my part to assist you is likely wasted.

 

[DCGOO]

I guess it works for you. There are days when it doesn't work at all for me. This browser has many failures and rough edges. When I try to bring up plugshare it won't let me tap the cookie message to get rid of it, the button is half off the screen and I keep getting climate controls. Then when I try to select things in the filters they turn off and right back on! Or the browser just freezes on most any site.

ABRP isn't the answer to planning your trips in a Tesla anyway. ABRP requires you to set the mileage figure for your car and that number is essentially plucked from air.

Yes the browser is a little quirky, but much better today that it used to be. I never tried Plugshare in the car. Plugshare barely works on my Mac. ABRP though was written specifically to work with the in car browser. I found that it works just fine. Also, if you allow the ABRP site to log in to your Tesla account, it pulls data directly from your vehicle to populate many of the variables with real data.

 

[gnuarm]

The trip graph you posted shows you that you started driving more efficiently than the vehicle expected 50 miles into your trip. If you had started driving more aggressively at a later point, it would have shown that be the two lines starting to converge again. Based on the slope of the line, you can get a rough idea of trends for literally every mile of your trip.

That is my point. The indicated range started increasing in the first 30 miles. Because a few percent increase at the end required a much smaller deviation early in the graph it doesn't show significantly at the beginning. Try constructing your own graph with a pencil and paper and you will see what I mean. Draw a base line between the starting point and some final SoC. Then pick a new final point a few percent higher and draw a line from very early in the graph to that new final point and draw a line the same final point from half way and draw a line from the last quarter to the new final point agan. You will see tht first new line to be nearly parallel to the original line deviating only very slightly early on.

The first 30 miles of the trip is lower speed roads with a few passing bursts. The next 40 miles are higher speed highways. Then it is back to lower speed roads again. Notice there is no change at the 50 mile point. That is just the point where the low resolution graph displays a deviation wide enough you can see it.

You're telling me you get all the information you need from the projected SoC, but you're the one posting about the range estimate being broken, so you're clearly not getting all the info you needed.

I'm saying there is no information hidden in the graph that isn't well indicated by the final SoC estimate.

You aren't seeing my point because you think you understand what I'm saying and you don't, or maybe you don't care because you are convinced I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I think you are making a mistake in this case because you aren't giving consideration to the difference in impact of improved mileage early in the trip compared to improved mileage at other points in the trip as well as the poor quality of the graph shown. The lines themselves are sever % SoC wide.

Likewise, complaining about the top 10% of the battery going faster than the rest in another thread, while a good number of others (myself included) can attribute that loss to regen, which you clearly undervalue.

Loss of regen is not the same as loss of range. It only causes loss of range if you have to use your brakes rather than engine regen. The reality is I drive gently when regen is limited and prevent the need for manual braking. Or would that be pedally braking?

I don't know what to tell you, but I feel that any further effort of my part to assist you is likely wasted.

Ok, I get it.

 

[Rocky_H]

Your whole point of this post is that the predicted SoC didn't work for you and you don't know why.

Heh--no. It's that the predicted SoC acted like a psychopath and none of us know why.